To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

North Carolina Attorney General reports

Biennial report of the Attorney-General of the State of North Carolina

at t|)e
canj\jet$itg of Bonh Carolina
Collection ot i^ottd Catoliniana
Ca + o
UNIVERSITY OF N.C. AT CHAPEL HILL
_ 00033944581
FOR USE ONLY IN
THE NORTH CAROLINA COLLECTION
BIENNIAL REPORT
OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
1928-1930
DENNIS G. BRUMMITT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
FRANK NASH
WALTER D. SILER
ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL
PT. WAVNI PTa. 00. PT. WAVNC IND,
LIST OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL SINCE THE ADOPTION
OF THE CONSTITUTION IN 1776
Terin of Office
Avery, Waightstill 1777-1779
Iredell, James 1779-1782
Moore, Alfred 1782-1790
Haywood, J. John 1791-1794
Baker, Blake 1794-1803
Seawell, Henry 1803-1808
Fitts, Oliver 1808-1810
Miller, William 1810-1810
Burton, Hutchins G 1810-1816
Drew, William 1816-1825
Taylor, James F 1825-1828
Jones, Robert H 1828-1828
Saunders, Romulus M 1828-1834
Daniel, John R. J 1834-1840
McQueen, Hugh 1840-1842
Whitaker, Spier 1842-1846
Stanly, Edward 1846-1848
Moore, Bartholomew F 1848-1851
Eaton, William 1851-1852
Ransom, Matt W 1852-1855
Batchelor, Joseph B 1855-1856
Bailey, William H 1856-1856
Jenkins, William A 1856-1862
Rogers, Sion H 1862-1868
Coleman, William M 1868-1869
Olds, Lewis P 1869-1870
Shipp, William M 1870-1872
Hargrove, Tazewell L 1872-1876
Kenan, Thomas S 1876-1884
Davidson, Theodore F 1884-1892
Osborne, Frank 1 1892-1896
Walser, Zeb V 1896-1900
Douglas, Robert D 1900-1901
Gilmer, Robert D 1901-1908
Bickett, T. W 1909-1916
Manning, James S 1917-1925
Brummitt, Dennis G 1925-
^s9
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
State of North Carolina,
Department of Attorney General
Raleigh, November 15, 1930.
To His Excellency, O. Max Gardner, Governor,
Dear Sir:—In compliance with sections 6090-6099, Consolidated Statutes
of 1919, I herewith submit the biennial report of this department for the
years 1928-29 and 1929-30.
Only the more important of the opinions of the department are included
in this report. We write an enormous number of letters each year to
county and city officials relating to the performance of their duties. In
many cases, these opinions can only be advisory, but we regard them as
being of value to such officials. This kind of work is aiding in develop-ment
of a uniform practice in the several counties and towns on the sub-jects
covered by the opinions given.
I recommend that the school law and the election law be entirely re-written
at the approaching session of the General Assembly. I make this
recommendation because clarification of these acts by revision is needed
in view of new acts and amendments to them within recent years. I will
be glad to aid appropriate committees of the General Assembly in this
work.
I apprehend that taxation will be one of the most important subjects
claiming the attention and thought of the General Assembly at its ap-proaching
session. As is usual, the Machinery and Revenue Acts will be
rewritten. I shall be glad to aid the finance committees of the Senate and
House in their work to such extent as they may desire.
In writing these general laws, it is rather important that the lan-guage
of the old statutes, especially where such language has received
favorable construction by the Court, be retained as much as possible.
Yours very truly,
. Dennis G. Brummitt,
Attorney General.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
Ensuring Democracy through Digital Access (NC-LSTA)
http://www.archive.org/details/biennialrep1928attrny1930
EXHIBIT I
CiVAL Actions Disposed of or Pending in the Courts of
North Carolina and the Federal Courts
Disposed of in Superior Courts of North Carolina
Durham Public Service Co. v. N. C. College of A. & E.
State ex rel. Doughton, Com'r v. Elliott, Executor.
National Savings & Trust Co. v. Maxwell, Commissioner of
Revenue.
Eason v. State School for the Blind and the Deaf.
Anderson Motor Co. v. Doughton.
Grinnan v. Caswell Training School.
Haines, Jones and Cadbury Co. v. State College.
J. Lawrence Sprunt v. Doughton, Commissioner.
Clifton & Wife v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
Pending in Superior Courts of North Carolina
General Motors Co. v. Doughton (4 cases).
Cullins V. State College.
H. P. Brandies, et al. v. Attorney General.
Raleigh Banking & Trust Co. v. East Carolina Teachers Col-lege.
Jas. P. Bunn, et al. v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
Louis M. Bourne v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
McFadden v. State Treasurer.
H. R. McLawhorn v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
Carolina Discount Corporation v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
Southeastern Express Co. v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
State Board of Education v. Goldsboro Lumber Co.
Chemical Construction Co. v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
Disposed of in Supreme Court of North Carolina
Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Doughton, 196 N. C, 145.
O'Neal V. Wake County, 196 N. C, 184.
State ex rel Corporation Com. v. Railroads, 196 N. C, 190.
W. H. Yarborough, et al. v. Park Commission, 196 N. C, 284.
Town of Greenville v. State Highway Commission, 196 N. C,
226.
Garysburg Mfg. Co. v. Pender County, 196 N. C, 744.
8 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State Board of Charities v. Carroll, 196 N. C, 752.
Mavis Bottling Co. v. Doughton, 196 N. C, 791.
Industrial Commission v. State Treasurer, 197 N. C, 595.
Clark V. Maxwell, Com'r of Revenue, 197 N. C, 604.
McFadden v. State Treasurer, 198 N. C, 223.
Cullins V. State College, 198 N. C, 337.
State ex rel. Attorney General v. Snow Hill Ey. Co., 198 N. C,
381.
O'Berry, Treas. v. Mecklenburg Highway Commission, 198 N.
C, 357.
Hines v. Williams, 198 N. C, 420.
Carolina Coach Co. v. Hartness, 198 N. C, 524.
Maxwell, Com'r of Revenue, v. Hans Rees' Sons, Inc., 199 N.
C, 42.
T. J. Warren v. The State (original), 199 N. C, 211.
State V. Suncrest Lbr. Co. (Park Commission case), 199 N. C,
199.
Pending in Supreme Court of North Carolina
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Maxwell, Commissioner
(new case)
.
Railway Express Agency v. Commissioner of Revenue.
Southern Grain & Provision Co. v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
Disposed of in U. S. Supreme Court
Murphy v. Corporation Commission, 74 L. ed., 103-239.
Garysburg Mfg. Co. v. Pender County, 74 L. ed., 105.
Pending in U. S. Supreme Court
Clark V. Commissioner of Revenue.
Hans Rees' Sons, Inc. v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue.
Disposed of in U. S. District Court
Southern Railway Co. v. Highway Commission.
Pending in U. S. District Court
Nat'l Surety Co. v. Catawba Const. Co. & State Prison Depart-ment.
Disposed of in Circuit Court of Appeals
State V. Southern Railway & Receiver of A. & Y. Railway Co.
Suncrest Lumber Co. v. N. C. Park Commission.
EXHIBIT II
List of Cases Argued by the Attorney General and Assist-ant
Attorney General Before the Supreme Court, Fall
Term, 1928; Spring Term, 1929; Fall Term, 1929; Spring
Term, 1930.
AUGUST TERM, 1928
1. State V. Ashe, from Haywood; abduction; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
2. State V. Carr, from Duplin; manslaughter; appeal by de-fendant
; new trial.
3. State V. Corriher, from Buncombe ; murder, second degree
;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
4. State V. Cox, from Pitt ; receiving stolen goods ; appeal by
defendant; affirmed.
5. State V. Dills, from Macon; murder, second degree; ap-peal
by defendant ; new trial.
6. State V. Earp, from Wake; forcible trespass; appeal by
defendant; affirmed.
7. State V. Foster, from Haywood ; liquor ; appeal by defend-ant;
new trial.
8. State V. Gibson, from Swain; assault with intent to kill;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
9. State V. Golden, from Forsyth; liquor; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
10. State V. Grace, from Mecklenburg ; embezzlement ; appeal
by defendant ; reversed.
11. State V. King, from Hertford; manslaughter; appeal by
defendant; affirmed.
12. State V. Lambert, from Swain; breaking and entering;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
13. State V. Lawrence, from Chatham; murder, second de-gree
; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
14. State V. Mayer, from Madison ; false pretense ; appeal by
defendant ; reversed.
15. State V. Mull, from Burke; murder, second degree; ap-peal
by defendant ; new trial.
10 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
16. State V. McKnight, from Guilford; larceny; appeal by
defendant; affirmed.
17. State V. McLeod, from Lee; murder, first degree; ap-peal
by defendant ; new trial.
18. State V. Reed, from Buncombe; larceny; appeal by de-fendant;
reversed.
19. State V. Shew, from Wilkes; larceny; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
20. State v. Smith, from Swain; slander; appeal by defend-ant;
error.
21. State V. Swinson, from Onslow; mutilating records; ap-peal
by defendant; reversed.
22. State v. Tuttle, from Stokes; liquor; appeal by defend-ant;
reversed.
23. State v. Vickers, from Durham; abandonment; appeal
by defendant; remanded.
24. State v. White, from Pasquotank; burglary, second de-gree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
25. State v. Wilson, from Pitt; receiving; appeal by defend-ant
; affirmed.
26. Si^te V. Yelverton, from Greene; abandonment; appeal
by defendant ; new trial.
Docketed and Dismissed
27. State v. Larry Newsome, from Chatham.
28. State v. John Dildy, from Lenoir.
29. State v. John Dixon, from Wake.
30. State v. Parrish and Hester, from Forsyth.
31. State V. Ed Parks, from Forsyth.
32. State v. E. E. Saunders, from Forsyth.
33. State v. Robah Thomas, from Davidson.
34. State v. Brown, from Davidson.
35. State v. Brown, from Davidson.
36. State v. James Dinkins, from Wake.
FEBRUARY TERM, 1929
37. State v. Anderson, from Wake; malfeasance; appeal by
defendant; judgment arrested.
38. State v. Barbee, from Randolph; larceny and receiving;
appeal by defendant ; venire de novo.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 11
39. State v. Beasley, from Robeson; bad check; appeal by
defendant; action dismissed.
40. State v. Craft, from Pitt; larceny; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
41. State V. Dalton, from Stokes; liquor; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
42. State v, Daniels, from Madison; liquor; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
43. State v. Debnam, from Greene; misfeasance; special
verdict; appeal by State; affirmed.
44. State v. Freeman, from Yadkin; arson; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
45. State v. Gooding, from Jones; assault upon female; ap-peal
by defendant ; affirmed.
46. State v. Grant, from Richmond; liquor; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
47. State v. Griggs, from Cherokee; assault upon female;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
48. State v. Hargett, from Greene; breaking and entering;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
49 .State v. Johnson, from Wayne; murder, second degree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
50. State v. Lee, from Duplin; murder, first degree; appeal
by defendant; new trial.
51. State V. Moore, from Mecklenburg; murder, second de-gree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
52. State V. Palmer, from Lee; liquor; appeal by defendant;
affirmed.
53. State v. Palmer, from Davidson ; involuntary man-slaughter;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
54. State v. Pugh, from Lenoir; larceny; appeal by defend-ant;
reversed.
55. State v. Ritter and Vaughan, from Richmond ; conspiracy
to kill ; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
56. State v. Rhyne, from Anson; liquor; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
57. State v. Stansberry, from Cherokee ; assault upon female
;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
58. IN RE : Veasey, from Bertie ; habeas corpus ; appeal by
State; affirmed.
12 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
59. State v. Vickers, from Durham ; abandonment ; appeal by
defendant; affirmed.
60. State v. Weston, from Brunswick; liquor; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
Docketed and Dismissed
61. IN RE : Guy Whitfield, from Edgecombe.
62. State v. Burney Godette, from Greene.
63. State v. Johnson, from Pitt.
64. State v. Redie, from Greene.
65. State v. A. A. Mills, from Greene.
66. State v. Ola Grant, from Greene.
67. State v. J. H. Ridge, from Forsyth.
68. State v. Ralph Ferguson, from Cabarrus.
69. State v. Claude Bell, from Wilkes.
AUGUST TERM, 1929
70. State v. Allen, from Durham; murder, second degree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
71. State V. Barber, from Lenoir; murder, second degree;
appeal by defendant; new trial.
72. State v. Brown, from Burke; receiving stolen goods; ap-peal
by defendant ; affirmed.
73. State v. Burleson, from Stanly; breaking and entering;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
74. State v. Cagle, from Moore; murder, second degree; ap-peal
by defendant; affirmed.
75. State v. Cornett, from Ashe; removing fence; appeal by
defendant; appeal dismissed.
76. State v. Crawford, from Wake; bad check; appeal by de-fendant;
remanded.
77. State v. Eldridge, from Surry ; manslaughter ; appeal
by defendant; new trial.
78. State v. Evans, from Richmond; murder, first degree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
79. State v. Fox, from Edgecombe ; murder, first degree ; ap-peal
by defendant ; affirmed,
80. State v. Glenn, from Mitchell; manslaughter; appeal by
defendant; new trial.
81. State V. Green, from Cumberland; A. D. W. and aband-onment
; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 13
82. State v. Hickey, from Mitchell ; liquor ; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
83. State v. Hunt, from Davidson; liquor; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
84. State v. Luff, from Moore ; forgery ; appeal by defendant
;
new trial.
85. State v. Miller, from Bertie; murder, first degree; appeal
by defendant; affirmed.
86. State v. McKinnon, from Duplin; murder, first degree;
appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
87. State v. O'Neal, from Wake; liquor; appeal by defend-ant
; new trial.
88. State v. Phifer, from Mecklenburg; manslaughter; ap-peal
by defendant ; new trial.
89. State v. Poe, from Orange; false pretense; appeal by de-fendant;
reversed.
90. State v. Roberson (M.), from Durham; abortion; appeal
by defendant; new trial.
91. State V. Roberson (W.), from Durham; zoning ordi-nance
; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
92. State v. Roberts, from Orange; abandonment; appeal by
defendant; new trial.
93. State v. Scurlock, from Randolph ; larceny and receiving
;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
94. State v. Sneed, from Durham; abandonment; appeal by
defendant ; affirmed.
95. State v. Trogdon, from Randolph; secret assault; appeal
by defendant ; new trial.
96. State v. Wade, from Hoke ; seduction ; appeal by defend-ant
; new trial.
97. State v. Wilson, from Pender; murder, first degree; ap-peal
by defendant ; affirmed.
98. State v. Wrenn, from Wilkes; conspiracy; appeal by de-fendant;
reversed.
Docketed and Dismissed
99. State v. Wiley Whitley, from Greene.
100. State V. Earl Hayes, et al., from Sampson.
101. State V. Sandy Joyner, from Lenoir.
102. State v. Goley Fulford, from Brunswick.
103. State v. Archie Fowler, et al., from Davidson.
14, BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
104. State v. Archie Fowler, from Davidson.
105. State v. Jess Meacham, from Guilford.
106. State v. Ben Wallace, et al., from Guilford.
107. State v. C. A. Straughan, from Robeson.
108. State v. Van Walters, from Robeson.
109. State V. Otis Burnette, from Clay.
FEBRUARY TERM, 1930
110. State V. Barkley, from Pasquotank; bribery; appeal by
defendant ; new trial.
111. State V. Battle, from Edgecombe; larceny; appeal by
defendant; reversed.
112. State V. Blake, from Durham; murder, first degree; ap-peal
by defendant; new trial.
113. State V. Birkman, from Cumberland; murder, second
degree; appeal by defendant; new trial.
114. State V. Corey, from Pender; false pretense; appeal by
defendant; reversed.
115. State V. Crawford, from Wake; bad check; appeal by
State, special verdict ; affirmed.
116. State V. Grievas, from Lenoir; liquor; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
117. State V. Heath, from Robeson; "blue sky law"; appeal
by State; affirmed.
118. State V. Jaynes, from Caldwell; liquor; appeal by de-fendant
; affirmed and remanded for judg.
119. State V. Jones, from Buncombe; manslaughter; appeal
by defendant; affirmed.
120. State v. Lamb, from Craven; forgery; appeal by de-fendant;
reversed.
121. State V. Lassiter, from Chowan; liquor; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
122. State v. Lockey, from Cumberland ; barber's act ; appeal
by defendant ; affirmed.
123. State v. Macon, from Warren ; murder, first degree ; ap-peal
by defendant; affirmed.
124. State v. Mitchell, from Burke ; manslaughter ; appeal by
defendant; affirmed.
125. State v. Myrick, from Halifax; forfeited bond; appeal
by defendant; reversed.
BIENNIAL EEPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL lb
126. State v. McAfee, from Lenoir (2 cases) ; liquor; appea.
by defendant; affirmed.
127. State v. McLeod, from Lee ; murder, first degree ; appea'
by defendant; affirmed.
128. State v. Parker, from Anson; murder, first degree; ap
peal by defendant; affirmed.
129. State v. Ratliff, from Anson ; breaking and entering
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
130. State v. Ritter, from Richmond ; conspiracy to murder ;
appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
131. State V. Satterfield, from Guilford; involuntary man-slaughter;
appeal by defendant; reversed.
132. State v. Sauls, from Gaston; C. C. W. ; appeal by de-fendant
; new trial.
133. State v. Sawyer, from Martin ; murder, first degree ;.
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
134. State v. Setzer, from Catawba ; breaking and entering
;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
135. State v. Simmons, from Guilford; murder, first degree;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
136. State v. Spivey, from Lee; murder, first degree; appea'.
by defendant; affirmed.
137. State v. Wishon, from Macon; murder, second degree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
138. State v. Beal, from Mecklenburg; murder, second de-gree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
139. State v. Hoffman, from McDowell; riot; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
140. State v. Jackson ; from Rowan ; rape ; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed and remanded for proper judgment.
Docketed and Dismissed
141. State V. Truelove, et al., from Harnett.
142. State v. Clay Mullins, from Wake.
143. State v. Pete Stone, from Stokes.
144. State v. R. M. Smith, from Guilford.
145. State v. Sam Mills, from Guilford.
146. State v. Parker Morris, from Lee.
147. State v. James Marley, from Moore.
148. State v. Andrew Becton, from Lenoir.
149. State v. Brumfield, from Union.
150. State v. Floyd Stanley, from Craven.
16 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUMMARY OF CASES
Affirmed on defendant's appeal 57
New trial or reversed on defendant's appeal 41
Affirmed on State's appeal 4
Remanded on defendant's appeal 2
Remanded for judgment 1
Judgment arrested 1
Venire denovo 1
Error 1
Appeal dismissed 42
Total 150
CRIMINAL STATISTICS
STATEMENT A
The Following Statement Shows the Criminal Cases Disposed of Dubinq the
Fall Term, 1928 and Spring Term, 1929
Counties
1
O
a
.2
-3
e
CC4
So
V
ao
1 1
Is
ll
5(5
o
o o
Alamance 19 17 33 3 33 2 1 36
Alexander 85 17 97 5 74 6 21 1 102
Alleghany. 34 5 36 3 33 3 3 39
Anson 147 266 401 12 306 51 55 1 413
Ashe 107
88
46
1
2
45
105
87
88
3
3
3
87
74
69
20
4
10
1
11
12
1
108
Avery ._ 90
BeauJtort 91
Bertie 44
27
76
19
115
40
5
6
89
31
21
14
10
1
120
Bladen 46
Brunswick 41
325
11
199
50
468
2
56
27
470
25
49
62
Buncombe 2 3 524
Burke 111 12 121 2 103 2 17 1 123
Cabarrus 118 52 162 8 118 18 34 170
Caldwell 242 51 280 13 261 17 15 293
1
19
18
173
7
8
14
43
8
24
32
205
3
11
7
27
28
168
1 8
Carteret 27
Caswell 4
29
32
Catawba 15 4 216
Chatham 61 63 122 2 115 1 8 124
Cherokee 148
4
12
6
151
10
9 125
6
35
1
160
Chowan 3 10
Clay 38 6 43 1 24 12 8 44
Cleveland 113 36 138 11 104 14 31 149
Columbus 100 50 143 7 105 20 24 1 160
Craven* 27 87 108 6 92 13 9 1 115
Cumberland 125 105 213 17 152 26 50 2 230
Currituck 11
9
1
5
12
13 1
12
12
12
Dare 2 14
Davidson 176 29 188 17 178 16 11 205
82 21 101 2 78 7 18 103
Duplin 67 82 135 14 76 21 52 149
Durham 314 406 637 83 531 73 114 2 720
Edgecombe 46 87 125 8 95 22 16 133
Forsyth 427 355 720 62 686 76 11 9 782
Franklin 40 42 80 2 53 18 11 82
Gaston 558 100 629 29 359 96 190 13 658
Gates 61 52 108 5 75 12 26 113
Graham 53
69
51
184
2
10
23
142
27
23
2
28
1
1
53
Granville 125 194
Greene 33 36 66 3 47 16 6 69
Guilford 346 212 528 30 457 58 41 2 558
Halifax 172 257 410 19 391 15 23 429
Harnett 123 104 215 12 96 35 95 1 227
Haywood 275 12 276 11 150 44 93 287
Henderson 46 32 74 4 41 14 23 78
Hertford 24 94 112 6 96 18 4 118
Hoke. 40
8
27
13
1 68
20 1
68
17
5
4
5 68
Hyde 21
18 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATEMENT A Continued
Counties
o
O 1 6
1o
V
go
'5
-<
t. o
£ g-
O Q
o
"3 §
o o
Eh O
Iredell 42 33 74 1 56 3 16 75
Jackson* 54 3 56 1 17 7 34 58
Johnston. 47
20
41
105
31
37
42
95
72
57
77
188
6
6
12
77
44
61
144
1 7S
12
4
37
1
18
19
Lee 83
Lenoir 200
Lincoln 46 13 51 8 31 10 17 1 59
Macon 213 8 212 9 126 13 82 221
Madison 221 8 223 6 142 22 64 1 229
Martin 36 32 68 57 8 3 68
McDowell 175 47 212 10 167 10 41 4 222
Mecklenburg _ . 483 450 839 94 510 106 303 14 933
Mitchell 45
104
45
143 3
31
68
2
12
12
65 1
45
Montgomery... 42 146
Moore 30 22 48 4 38 9 5 52
Nash . 59
48
94
141
142
177
11
12
96
148
23
39
34
2
153
New Hanover.. 189
Northampton.. 49 97 139 7 114 16 16 146
Onslow 73 34 105 2 79 14 14 107
Orange 118 105 214 9 175 20 28 223
Pamlico 28 44 71 1 64 4 4 72
Pasquotank 29 38 64 3 47 4 16 67
Pender 44 43 85 2 62 16 9 87
Perquimans 12 14 25 1 15 7 4 26
Person 97 91 186 2 150 17 21 188
Pitt 69
91
217
91
16
46
152
103
254
8
4
9
124
82
159
20
6
21
16
19
82 1
160
Polk... 107
Randolph 263
Richmond 113 78 182 9 143 12 36 191
Robeson 143 80 45 256 12 156 40 64 8 268
Rockingham 134 61 189 6 151 26 18 195
Rowan 61 26 79 8 62 7 14 4 87
37
117
12
85 2
49
194 10
44
159
5
36
49
Sampson.. 9 204
Scotland 36 46 3 82 3 65 6 14 85
Stanly. . 35 16 48 3 50 1 51
Stokes 55 18 71 2 59 10 3 1 73
Surry 118
135
78
13
3
6
14
128
143
76
3
9
8
113
97
39
13
17
7
5
38
37 1
131
Swain ... 152
Transylvania . . 84
TyrreU 6 4 10 4 2 3 1 10
32
83
608
8
30
49
527
26
61
121
1,078
34
1
11
57
54
93
753
22
8
23
117
7
62
Vance .. 16
260
5
5
132
Wake 1,135
Warren 34
Washington 4 16 17 3 11 4 5 20
Watauga
Wayne
50 8 57 1 57 1 58
24 38 60 62 62
Wilkes 438
102
12
134
405
220
45
16
209
126
33
35
206
74
2
1
450
Wilson 236
Yadkin 92
76
9
5
96
78
5
3
94
38
7
12
101
Yancey 31 81
Totals 10,422 6,321 65 15,848 960 11,946 1,888 2,883 93 16,810
*2 Corporations.
20 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
O m
m 2
n H
U08JV -
83j3aa paooag (M CO CO
—XJB|3ina
^jaSSng;
"^ *"*
j^jaqug
jCmBSig
^^ '"' e<i CO CCI ^~* '"^
XpjB'jsBg
'"'
uoBioj 0^ ^dma^nv
3uinaAiQ
adB}£ 0^
CO '"' ffq rt IN 1
BnodBBM ^ip^aQ
q:>m ^piBssy
Ol MM C<l»0»i30i'M <MiO«)iO •-H CO 00 05 CO
Xia^^Bg puB ipiBssy
C^ 00 t^ *^ Ir- M CO OO lO O CO <M t^ rt t^
uosjy
IM (M
^BJJBV
'^ rt -* C) <M Cq —I cq
uoi^ioqv
CO
uoijonpqv
c^
^narauopuBqv
eo <M »-H ,-1 ^ CO CO —c IM CO rt "
.2
a
2
c8
£
<
0)
1d
X
a
<
>a
i
•< <
>
c
4
«
C!
1
2
w
1
oo
m
a
3
CO
I
c
tt)
1
03 c3
"a
£
03
O
o
a)
y
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 21
^0)10 CQ -ri- Tt* »-l (M
CO»005«C>-^ COCO^Hir^lO OCOOOCOCO O^H t^ 05 -rJ^ O 05
rt I 10 ^ * * t^T-(CCCOC^ COt^OilOOO C<I-^^HiO00 —^.-H
O rt
^ rt « »-i CM T-H CO <M IC rt rt
"3 S P
s
OOOyO OOQQQ
« i ° is ;=!
.t3 w o IT -1^
p. t- M £ S
Q Q W fe ft.
a> o >i c) ^
22 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
uosay (M '"'
9aj39Q puoogg
—AJBiSjng
cn 1 m '"'
1
—j^JBlSmg
AjaSSng
*"*
j^jaqug
'
iCtu^Stg
" " C<J l-H <N ^^
XpaB^SBg
uosio<£ 0^ ;)(ima^;v
3nin8MQ
" ' " t^ ^^ '^^ T-i "
lOO C3000<M CCI(MC<1-<J<(M lOOCOiOO 1-1 ^i-HCqoO Csl r-t^ oi^Cq^
C<ICO-^l>-CO T-HO5T-i00CD 001>.i-l»OCO Ci C^ C-q CO
uosiy
" .-H T-H 1-H Ol
^njyv
(N lo m (M >0 -^ T-H CO t-H t^
uoi^joqv ;
"
uoi^onpqv
^uauinopuBqv
Ttl CO pq M .1 rt tr~ " oq CO .1 (M
Counties
(
[
3
1 'c3 ^
i;:
i c
5 i
\ c
I H
5
,c
c
C
c
11
3 "a
>
£ct
c
c
> a
c
<'
12
; ;
s
12
i c
3 £
J
cC
a
c
C
c
1
c;
1
C
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 23
'^ '^ <M CO ^ Tj< CO
c^
1 .-( IN to T* '"' '"* Tt< 'Jl
.Q
eq '"' ^ "^ O
^^ CO
^^ cq ^^ (M cq CO
^^ " •o
»—
c^
'"' C<1 rt (N ^ '"' '"' '"' to rt in
^.-ic^t^N t-(N(M<o«o ^ojiOTfi-* om-*cot^ ooc<i.-ie<ic^ cooicq^M
I
i~ 00 cq iM -*COOM«1 OT0O.-I1-1 ^MTOrtCC t~t^lM ^H Tj^ 00 -^ CO irH
i
^ e<i " . " '"' S
* (M ^ y-H Tj^ '^ rt (rq M 1—1 T—
<M ro CO s
IM (M o
^ cq T-t l-H
c5
-HC<i:^ rtMM-S<C^ ... .- Th (M CO « O rt « t^ i-H 1-H
S
c
t-s
1
C
I
c
£
c
c
O:
1
c
ic
C
a
C
£ c
>> .£
'£
1
'a
I-E-c
1 ^
acc
>
a
1
c
1
' ac>
J c
>a
C
>
E^
24 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
3njQ puB poo^
araBQ puB qsij
' " "^
asna^ojj asi^^
fC C^ (M CO ^ CD '* * •*
cq
S9XBX
adBosg
. >rt CO
(juatnaxzzaquig
" t^ (N "
SMBi not^oaia
3C1
3mqm()siQ
c^ CO m CO " "
GO
111
llj
i
^!}J8dOJ<J
paS'BS:>ioj\[ 3nisodsiQ
Cvl >o (M
asnoH v^xjapjosiQ
^ N " " -H cq
"
3ni;>iajja^unoQ
XOBJtdsnoQ
PMO
JO qijitg; SanBaouoQ
aniptmoduioQ
snod'B8j^
pgiBaotioQ SniituBQ
! (M J- o LO ir^
. CO :'° """'
.S
d
1
c
<
3 J
1 <
c
<
c
J < <
> >
><
< 1
5
1 ^
1 C
'1
i
£c
\ J £
4
"a 1
E
X.
X.
o
A
O
BIEJNNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 25
eoiOTHt^ca c<)*-H ii-(io lOT-t-^io
M lO o T-t 1-1 00 »-l (M CO CO
(M (M CO
d (M i-H >OIM'-IOOi-( (Mrt-Hrt
C^ CQ e<i (M 05 05
QO »-H »0 OO
"3 B p ^
O O Q Q C
lu ^ f3
3 3 73 o S
Q Q W fe fe bbbC3C3 OWKffiffi
'3 "^ 03
& t3 i3 » _5J
— o
^ § -S « O -I >> 4)
ffi ffi ffi M
26 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
9TnvQ puB qsi^
<M ' "^ ^ 1 —1 O 1
asna'jaij ssieg^
C<1 -^ CO " ;: 1
eq N *"*
pTSOH onqn<j
saxBx
adBOsg
(M C-J T-l " ^
^jngraaizzsquig
T-l CO -^ W M CO <M W (M ^~'
SAveq noi^oajg
c
s3np8aj\[
SuiqjTl'JSIQ
—1 Tt< •^ "* '^ C~ rt <M r-1 1
o
1
ca
1- z
UJ
LU
i
pa3^3^joj\[ SuisodstQ
(M ^ """ " rt 00
asnojj iC|japjosiQ
t-l oo CO CD C^l CO ' '
0^ ^fnatuQ
^ '"' " T-H
Sn!!)ra}ja:>uno3
/loBiidsnoQ
'^ o
PCTO
JO q^itg 3ui|BaonoQ
'"' "
SutpunoduioQ
suodBa^
pa^BaouoQ Sui^jjBQ |
(-iCCi-i(N OCOi—i-rfiiC '-'Tt^
i""
"""''"
3
O
1
c
c
s
"c
s: c
> c
1 C
T
1
I-
1
b
<
a
"a
1
£ct
cc
5
) a
c
1
c
tl
' C
£
c
r
C
c
1
o
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 27
iiiii INN iiiN \\\\\ Mill irii
C-l
'^
;
1 ; 1 ! 1 ! ! I 1 ! I 1
'^^
1 ^ I I I ! 1 1 ! 1
1
rH
1 1
T-H
M*
iiCOi-l»-H rHCCCDIMi itiii CICOiiCO I'.^ill i-HOOi-iICO
g
INN NNI NNi NNI NNI NNI
-*
! 1 1 1 1 IIIII IIIII 1 1 1 1 1 U5 1 1 1 IIIII 50
lllll eq.-HCO--ll lc<llll Iiiii !MC-J.ii iii^i o
C<Iii-((Mi lCO'^^^l i(Mi'-Hi iiii^H lOr-lii i^^c^ii CD M
lllll lllll lllll IIIII 1 ^ 1 1 1 lllll OO
Mt^ii Mi^^i ii(Mii ilMC<>ii icoiii lOOi.rH o
111 1 ^,11, ,^,,1 _ li""* "'ll'^ ,!^q_l-H, o
1 1 1 1 rf 1 ^ -n 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 ca 1 1 1 ^ ^ 1 c-j 1 1 m It; r^ -M
s
lllll 111^; lllll lllll Irtlll II^hII Ci
lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll
lllll rt 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (M lllll lllll 1 50 1 1 1 o
lllll lllll lllll lllll II 1 1 1 1 1 1
*"*
1
'~
Ml MM MM! MM MM! M M
»0 ir^COOi CCl-l-#0 1 r-H^H 1 IIO 1-lt^^H l^H rtHt^ l ti-H I'^CDCOt^
nder
rson t Ik
ndolph
beson.
wan
therford
jtland
inly
)kes
rry
ain
ansylvania
ireU- ion nee ike
.
irren
itauga lyne Ikes [son
ncey
"3
o
o ca o
W CO w cc cc
3 ^ E fe
'5
CO OD H H h3
cd ti cS ^ ^^^^^ ^^^
28 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
saouBuipao '^
sME'j XjB^tilW
jaiqSnBisaBj^
"^ rt IM rt IM .-H CO *"* ^ <M
^noq^ij^ ssanisng
SnioQ '8Btiao{';[
^
inomi^ UOI8S3JOIJ
Suioi^oBij; 'asngoiq
'^ '"'
pqn
SuiAiaoay^
CJt^lOCDlO QiOOOOlCC ir3lOli:^C^Tj< (Mi-l<Mt--.Tp
§ni^'BDtxo:jni
COOii-HOOCC -^(M-^CCCO -^CDOCD
CO''—IQ5CO W3i-i(Ni-«C^J •<**lCCCO
CD as CD (M t-
05 00 O
•s 3
C 0^ Xjnrnj
" " -.-
8
1
Z
Id
s
1-
c^saouj
"
Suiujng asnoH
"
3utj['B3jq38nojj
(MOO^—100 IMMCq^
•<j^ o ^ QO ^ (M
sjA'B'j q^l^ajj
JO Suqqm'BQ
-<** *"* ^^ ^ CO rt CO
yJja^pipV
pwe uoi^jBOiujo^g;
rt (M -H « *"* •* T^ ^ (M
iCjagjo^
rt e<l O (M (M O rt rt pq t~ Cq (M
ss^dsaix 8NP-IOJ
.-H --( <M CO 05 (M "* »-< CO « <i<
1
Ic
£
<
a
><
a
<
>
< <
>
<
n
PC fC
a
£cc
1
J
"a
C
c.
£
1<
S
c
1
i
i
J 1
o
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 29
1 1 1 1 1 »c t i t » 1 (M • 1 1 1
J
1 1 1
J I I I I till!
• iC^irp i-HiiOOi-H (MOOiOOCO CCtiC^i iO»C(M<Ni
1 1 1 1 1 'lilt ill!' 1 1 1
'"'
1 1 1 1 1 1 lilt!
' ' ' IM 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
^^O'"*'^ C0C0O'<*<:0 t>-03C0CDO O0-^<M^O OOC<IOOW5 COOOI-^CO I
^H o o o »o o
1-1 <M
•* N OO ^ ^H
-tj^ (M CD CO i-H
O t>. Tt< !>
C^O CO oo o i-i (M tH
irqcooooocc iococ<i»-i.-h im»-ioo
00 T-l CD ,-( .-H t^ w
T-H CO o CO to
(M C^ CO IM
T-H iC CO ic CO O ^ t>- «-< ^rHi-HCO'—
OSfMiO"—II—I
^ fl s
o >> > 5 ^ ii o o o o o ^ ^ 03 ^ Oi O O Q Q Q
01
OSS
Q Q Eiq [X, Pl,
„ a p»
o o o o o
S cS c4 a H) o n R K n
£ ^ -a -o ^ fl> o >> a) 2 WW W A»?
30 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
|'Bdioninj\[
SJAVJ iClBJIftl^
jaimSnBisnm^i
rt M C-l 1-H 1-H (M (M cq M C-J —1 1
^noq!>ijVl ssanisng;
3niOQ 'asaaot^
"
^noqcfij^ uoissajojj;
" »—
laqn
SniAiaoay
01>-cOC50i -<*HOiCn(MuO t^cqcOt-cO t^eO'^Or-.
sionbvj
COt^CDt>-CO COOOr-CO 00I>-COCCb- 0'-*<-^l>.00 r-ii-H(Mi-it-H »0'-ii-Hcn':0 i-HCDr-itNcq -^Ji^OSi-i
C 0} j?jnfnj
CO C<1 T-l " C-l *"* ^~*
u
UJ
UJ
^saouj
^ '^ CVI 1—1 1—
Suiujng asnojj
u
Suijjtjaiqasnojj
t-^ rH OS ;= lO c-i i:~ —
T-H -rr
cc —
I^
s/Avj q^l'Bajj
JO Sui^qm'Br)
"
.
OO Ti< CO 00 t^ 1
puB uoi:jBOinjo^
' <*< r}H t^ CO c^
j?ia3jo^
CO M 05 1 (M « ^ „„,. '^ (M
ssBdsaax ^iqp-io^
I>. 1 —1 IN •^ T-l cq
.1
OO
o
a
JSo
•-5
It 'o
3
o
cc
1 1
o
p o
^1
o
Co
c
r5
C3
2
<U
i> od
03
M
c
e
a
o
O
ao
03
2 o
o
o
1
Oj
(1h
id
o3
s
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 31
III!! 1 I
'^
! "^ 2
r*HllT-ll ^HCCtOi-ICO C^C0l»O'-< ' '"' •-H •* I^ r-l CO rt 1 ^ N
1 1
'"'
I 1 III ^^11 I 1'
CD
^111 1 "1 35
tOCC03-^QO C^OOi-Ht-CO -rt^iOCC-^t^O OiCOOO Ol COCOODCO-* OOOOCDi-lOi
CO ^' '-H ^ -isji Tt^
-1<
QO
^ ir^oco ostoio-^cn cDcoio^t^ iO'*-*t-ii^ co»o-*-<j<^ oococ-co
1
"O
T-( 1 1 »-H (M 1 1 ,-1 CO *"* c^ (M * >o r-i cq
t^
'"' ^^ 05 —1
1 1 1 1 I 1 1
'"' " ^ "^
icDT-t 1-^ ctilooOCOC^ lOOiOt^iO CO^H^H lo r^ o cNi GC CO "O CO ^
'^ Ol
I 1 t^ 1 1 1-H (M CO IC ~ 1 1 M U5 •* 1 (32 "^i CO in
c5
-H 1 , ,-, Tj. I-- i?q ^ (M -H ^ C-l 1 <M .-< " ^ "
-^
irt itoca .^MrtC^l rf>o i 1 O CO ^ O O CO C-l 1^ CD CD *
i
1 1 -H 1 . 1 1 I tr- i-H 1 1 C^ ^^ CO ^ C^l 1 (M 0:1
s
Pender
Perquimans
Person
Pitt.-.. Polk...
Randolph Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham c
O
o
-a
co
a
a
ca
Scotland
Stanly
Stokes
c
p ^3
0)
O
1
03
3
cS
1
a cc
1
c
"3
32 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
0^ SB l«»OX
i CO
m*
S
O 05 § >« s B g
00
CO ^
-1<
i
snoanBnsosiW
CO t-H lO CO
— (M 05 M •*
ssBdsajx
C^ i-< <»< CO CO >-l (M —
'"' "^
japuBis
^~* N '"'
uotjonpag
CO e^ -< ^ (?» ^ ""^ rt rt rt cq (M C^ CO '"'
SAiBi looqog
'^ •^
itjaqqoH
•^
^oiH
83
aaotgo Sunsteag
M M " e^ -H rt '^ CO
CO
S
Ul
i
ad^a
C-1
Xinfaaj
""*
"jonpuoosij^ IBio^O
jaAt'jj Sni^oni'^sqo
iSBAiqaiH
otjqnJ Snt^oni^sqo
30U'BSm|.J
'^ " "
98a39Q puooag
—J3pinj\[
'"' -H (M (M CO * <M o> -H en CO ,-
—iapjnj\[
"
1
§
ac
<
C
X
<
>c
1
< <
4
<
> .4
1
a
i:
a
5
4
4
£c
c
a 1
i:
4
t:
£ 1
"4
i
cc
£
K
o
O
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 33
O^ tP O O WS O Tp -^ IQ r-< CO
Tt^iOCO OiOCOC^'M OOeOcO-^Oa Ol>-t^00 00COt-h»O00 r-irHOO -ffOJCOOOCO >0^H»f30iCD lOtMClOOr- t-iCOC^t^U3
Ol 1-H i-< CD ^-H i-H >0 **< (T^ <M
1-H ^ CO 1-H OO 05 O ^CO '-HOcDC^Ci iO'-H^H(M'-l
t-H T-H (M CO t (M M
1-1 I C<J ^ 1-< l-H »-t
(« cq CO (M ^ ro (M i-H
•^ T-l lO CO 1—1 WD CO
CO C^ C^ CO i-H CO
CO CO ^ 0» »0 CO t* CO <M -* i-t (M W CO OO CO i-H OO t>.
'3 s
, J5 =
o o a Q Q Q
o :g s
ft H M £ s
s 3 T3 o 2 Q Q H fe fi,
E 3
e« Oi K4 M M
o o o o o
O 03 O > J"
3 c« 03 c4 «
O M K K M M W W A 4
34 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
83l^tmOQ oe
1 S
c<
o- oc
«<
CO iO s "i 1
CO K 5
snoau'Bnaoeijv
CO ir3 *-< NO o o 05 t~ in
ssBdsaix
' * « •^ " tH rt -H ^ CO rt
japuBis
*"* *"*
noi^onpgg
•* —1 rt <M ^^ '"' CM >-l I-H
sJA'B'j looqog
o
XjaqqoH
" «5 ^g (M * t~ i-H
%om
1 .laoigO ^ui^sisa^
" lO rt " M CO C-1 CM
s
1
OS
111
s
llj
adua
C<1 ^^ (M " " '^
^mfjaj
C^ t-t cq cq
S;;
4onpuoosip\[ {BioyjQ
a8Aiy^ Surjonnsqo
oiiqnj; Sui:}onj^sqo
" CO
aouBstn^
'"' CO CM
aajSaQ pnooag
—japjni\[
CO ^ c^ t- lO W (M « 03 T-l CO »Ji CM
—japjn]/\[
"
.S
c
3O
O 1
c
3
'c
c
"c
c
ccc
cc
t
1
"a
Pc
t-i
"3
>
a.
ec
cc
cc
>
03
d.
2
c
o
-t-=
s
s
c
5?:
e
C
C
o
S
13
03
O3
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 35
oo(Noo«30 ooicocDoo -TtHOooiot^ cciooo*-«a:> cccccoc^ OO C) O --O ^ r-lo
;o "O OT o o°
00
ZC
OS<N(MO'* iQOOOCOiC wl--iC,-.,-H c^J^^'^fTP -rt* C^ ' CO o c^ CO i^ t^ cq
1 CS T^ o
l-H rt< 1 1 1 1—« CO lO T-H
1
'"' 1 C3 1 >o
1
'"^ 1 « 1
to C5
CO
1 '"'
N'
]'
1 —1 —1 1 CO s
*—I !,-<,—( 1 1 1-M CO
1^ 1
^^
1 " '"' g
i
^ IN
1 1 1 OO
1
"^
1
'"'' (M "- lO ^ ^ o
:
. 1 ^ " « -H -H '"''"*
J
""^ r-H lO t^ -^ —1 <^^
2
1—1 y—l 1 T-H ^H ^H ir> =o
^H 1 1 ,—1 o> ^ o**
t 1
'"' '"' ^~* 1-t i-H -^ 05
N
" o
' 1 (N (M cq 1 " -* •-<
?s
-H 1 1 00 T-H M * tX CO 1 cq i-H —1 Tti '^ —CO Tf 00 w 05 O <M --H
s
m
Pender
Person
Pitt
d^
T3
COE co
o
c
o
c
is
o
o
p
c.
S
c
o J -S 3
'cS
CO
2
O
'3
P
1)
03
£
o
IS
C3
3
«
la
V^
P
o
C
3O
36 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATEMENT C
The Following Statement Shows the Criminal Cases Disposed of During the
Fall Term, 1929, and Spring Term, 1930
Counties S
o 1 a
fa
1o
aOO
1
'3
&o
<
i
o5
Alamance 53 30 82 1 53 6 24 83
Alexander 68 6 73 1 39 12 23 74
AUeghany 26 2 26 2 26 2 28
98
68
158
198
3
2
283
68
151
13
3
9
216
68
60
33
2
15
47
83
1
o
296
71
Avery - . _ -. 160
Beaufort 67 30 94 3 51 11 35 97
Bertie 31
37
66
16
93
50
4
3
67
37
19
10
11
5 1
97
Bladen 53
26
206
8
79
32
253
2
32
27
244
7
34
34
Buncombe 7 285
Burke .. ..- 81
192
18
86
89
264
10
14
98
166
1
44
99
Cabarrus 67 1 278
Caldwell 262 38 293 7 252 13 34 1 300
Camden 2 7 9 7 1 1 9
Carteret 16
16
6
7
20
23
2 22
15
22
Caswell 1 7 23
72
63
13
63
_ 81
124
4
2
83
115
2
7
85
Chatham 4 126
Cherokee 110 7 109 8 80 36 1 117
Chowan 11 16 24 3 16 4 7 27
Clay 27
121
2
43
29
158 6
20
115
9
26
29
Cleveland 22 1 164
Columbus 93 34 122 5 85 18 23 1 127
Craven 61 92 150 3 113 17 23 153
Cumberland 118 108 1 212 15 141 24 61 1 227
6 6
7
352 17
6
5
320
6
7
291 31
2
18
7
Davidson 78 369
Davie 73
38
27
47
98
82
2
3
74
48
4
10
22
27
100
Duplin 85
Durham 216 281 443 54 387 52 57 1 497
Edgecombe 37 135 164 8 127 23 22 172
Forsyth 468 336 702 102 600 117 85 2 804
Franklin 32 23 55 24 17 14 55
Gaston 254 70 308 16 215 46 57 6 324
Gates 58 37 90 5 58 15 22 95
Graham. 97
61
96
163
1
6
20
133
4
12
73
24
97
Granville 108 169
Greene 19 35 54 38 4 12 54
Guilford- 323 254 530 47 449 84 43 1 577
Halifax 148
154
214
37
350
184
12
7
362
89
362
Harnett 34 68 191
Haywood* 212 15 214 13 79 30 115 4 228
Henderson 69 34 97 6 61 25 15 2 103
Hertford 28 86 111 3 76 19 19 114
Hoke - 16
3
62
28
28
31
2 46
30
90
1
3
35
23
69
8
1
6
3
7
18
46
Hyde 31
Iredell 93
Jackson 61 1 3 61 4 33 15 17 65
58
40
34
40
85
76
7
4
92
51
92
Jones.. 20 9 80
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATEMENT C—Continued
37
Counties 0)
T3
"o o
a
T3
01
OO
T3
<
i
Otherwise
Disposed
of
3o
Lee 22 26 46 2 39 7 2 48
Lenoir 116 101 192 25 130 41 46 217
Lincoln 42 8 50 31 9 10 50
Macon 212 9 3 209 15 122 29 72 1 224
Madison 163 13 164 12 107 29 33 7 176
44
260
47
27
90
278
1
9
83
181
8
26
91
McDowell 75 5 287
Mecklenburg . _
Mitchell
635
60
39
30
537 1,027
58
57
54
145
2
680
43
34
40
139
3
5
9
343
14
18
5
10 1,172
60
Montgomery
Moore
18
24
57
54
Nash _ _ _ . 88
59
106
138
180
185
14
12
105
151
21
44
68
2
194
New Hanover.. 197
Northampton..
Onslow
44
59
83
60
123
116
4
3
84
88
23
16
20
15
127
119
Orange
Pamlico
121
39
82
26
188
64
15
1
158
41
20
9
25
15
203
65
Pasquotank
Pender
29
30
16
63
40
85
5
8
25
68
15
12
5
13
45
93
Perquimans 12 20 32 26 2 4 32
Person 104 76 177 3 126 15 39 180
Pitt 70
120
266
75
88
14
66
74
154
126
323
144
4
8
9
5
144
109
199
110
14
23
22
14
158
Polk 2
104
22
7
3
134
Randolph
Richmond
332
149
Robeson 143 77 43 251 12 167 46 49 1 263
Rockingham
Rowan
200
79
103
41
288
117
15
3
208
104
67
7
28
9
303
120
R.utherford . . . 68
56
19
20
74
37 3
84
126
57
4
4
2
70
89
41
18
34
10
88
Sampson
Scotland
7
8
130
59
Stanly 35
145
16
41
49
178
2
8
43
145
8
17
61
Stokes 21 3 186
129
55
13
2
138
48
4
9
126
30
12
8
4
20
142
Swain* 58
Transylvania . . 23
16
45
76
357
18
23
16
88
119
680
46
2
1
6
32
7
17
12
79
88
474
34
6
3
10
26
111
16
23
Tyrrell... 2
44
49
355
35
3 18
89
11
126
3
1
125
Wake 712
Warren 53
Washington
Watauga
Wayne
Wilkes
10
70
59
237
30
2
96
14
38
71
145
241
2
1
10
10
23
49
93
133
15
19
22
2
23
42
93
1
3
40
72
155
251
Wilson 92 155 1 231 17 177 11 60 248
Yadkin... 74 10 81 3 61 11 11 1 84
Yancey 117 1 111 7 71 17 30 118
Totals 9,770 5,904 56 14,794 936 10,948 1,980 2,733 71 15,732
*2 Corporations.
38 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
u
uosjy *"
gKP
Q
m
aajSaQ puooag —jCJB|3ang
ZO rt
aH
XjaSSng
" c^ '"'
Po
Ajaqiig
c^
OmPO
S
XmBSig
'"' '"' CO -H
>
j^pj^^sBg
" O
CO
td «
O w
m ^
uostoj o; 'jdma^^v
ujng 0% ^dma^;v
M C<l " (N ^ N '
a 05 —CM .-1 M CO Ca
« CO t~ ^ to
Awj'j'Bg puB ^inBssy
OOCC'^CTJ'-H CCCDOOCDO i-^iOiOO « C<1 CD «
05
uosjy '
C<l "
10
O
iiujyv
Tt< « C<i oo -^ (M CT CO rl CO O
n
05
uopjoqy
.- "
it uoi^onpqv
CCl
o
(>uauiuopu'Bqv
^ >o <M CO rt CO O iO "
15
o
Hn
Eh
•-S
g g
es
S
ci
<
Cs>
<
>
w
0)
c
c<
-<
>
>
<
c
pq
a)
c
a) ^
ffl
c.
1r
sooc3
a
3
pq
03
"a
s
o
1
o
"a 1
o o
i
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 39
'
" r 11 !i i MM iiicMi iirt(Mi irti^i iii<M—1 eoiiii i.lieo
1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '"!!!!
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .1111 1 1 1 1 1 lO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 rt I
1 1 1 1 1 1 CO 1 1 1 I'll! 1 1 1 1 1 11!!!
iii^(M -h!!!1 ^cmIcm! (-ql!ll T)<Tt<!!! 11111
1 1 ! 1 1 11111 '"'1111 1 1 i 1 1 11111 1 1 1
'^
1
1 1 I 1 1 11111 11111 1 1 1 ' ^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
(Mii^^ iC^cqcO'-H C^^iii t^^^,, ,-t,iii
i-^j^cOt^--** Cq 1 iiOt^' -r}<C^t^-^^H OC<! i-^Tt^ ^'-H^iODO 05(MW5t^^-t
COO^i—l -*COF-4r-tt^ CCiOi^OS-^ COC^COI^'^ -^OiO^CO C^»—(T-t^cO
(M r-H rt in -H
^ ^ lO '-< O '^ C^ T-H (M
1-H (M T-H CO 1—I --^ "* ^ •* !>• (M
> > 3 > a s
„ „ 03 d
O Q Q Q
5- B-S" S 2 Q Q H 6=H (i,
^ „, ^ >
c<3 c3 frH t4 »!^
1 i
I c
I ^ o m ^
23 :s e
OOCOO OMKffiW WWWA*
40 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
uosxy '"' ^^
a8j39Q pnooag TO ^^ CO CO C<l 1
^.w33ng
" M " ""
Xjaqug
"^
Xra'BStg
TH IM eo •-1 <M
XpjB^SBg
uosiOfj 0) jdraa^^v
•s
C
C
SninsAiQ
eU
c^ "^ rt 1-H Ol ""
tiJ Oi 2 —coo OCDCO»-<Oi (M-^OOI^O CiOiCOOOO 1 ^(MMOS r-l-H (M«N
^
SlS^'i'BQ^ POB ^p^BSSV
»c t^OOt-^ -#<MOCq»-t t^t-H^H^io ^^OOS^-H^H
uosiy
^~' cq "
jiBjgv
(M (N t^ -H lo e<i CCI M* CO
uoi'jjoqv
"
noi^onpqy
1 M
•jnamuopnBqv
t-H rt--H COIMW»l<M <Mi-l.-<-H« (M r
la
•1
1
C
c
1 3 '
; 1
5 H
: c
J ;
5 <
3 :
3 c
1
1
3
1 =
i c
5
5 c
? 2
1
'
' 2' 2
5.
; c
: 4
) C
s
c
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 41
I
1 ^ I 1 c-j <
I
1 ' '
1
! ! I
*"*
I
' '
I I ^
I I I ^ . 1 « . ^
,,,,, iiiT^c^ ^w.i. .1.1. ^^^,, JI'^JI s
] J j [ ] I I ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t 1
'"'
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
cq
I I !
'"'
I ! 1 1 1 1 I'll! ! I t I
'"'
1 i 1 1 1
'"' '^
! t 1 M
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 III!! ! 1 ! 1 I
'"'
1 ! 1 1
tr-oo
C)
111!! i ! 1 . 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' ! ! ! 1 111!'"' (M
iit.t ii^iCO iii.f-t chilli i^^H.i i(M.ii CO
CO
C^0tt-*i1(OM't--hiO.-hcOssiOcisfiScOoOCO »aOCCb-C(OM cDC^Cr^i-ti-^i '<*v<nC^CC<M-* (MCqCOCC-^ CO
e^
1 CQ CO ' C<l 1 1—
i
!!!!! lil^i ['"'III '-'j<N|>o 1!II! '"'i'"''!. s
!ltii iiiciCi i-HfMii-^ ic<jc<iii iii-(ieo iiocoioo
oo
11111 Mill iiiii mil nil mil
1^
mil iiri NriMMi mn mii
-
(MiC^i-lt-l COCOC^COl iii»-HC^ _(^H,,,_l o-,'-<'-<ri -*'.^i<MW
r-iiiii
i i i J ! i i i i i i i .s i i iiiii iiiii
lfi!l! ftSrt'Si! ofl-a'' !!±!1 II^mS III!'
i iJJ Hill l|l-si ^-illi iiill IJill gfes.^o *.2ooo slgoo si£>;s S^^^?^ ^cS^§
Pm Ph fLi Ph fL, p;^ pii tf rt pij rt IB 02 02 CO 02 M H H P >^^^^ ^ ^ ^ >4 >l
1
o
Eh
42 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SAl'E'J
SnjQ puB poo^
S/A.V'J
*"* "5 '"' CO '"'
asua^ajj Bsie^
T-H Tin ' >« CO '"' CO r-l 1
^^
S9XBX CO j
adBosg
ira T^ ^ ^^
I
^uauiaizzaquig
« ,-. CO CO ^^
smbt; uoic)08|g
•s
1
e3nic(aaj\[
3uiqjn:)SiQ
-H CO CO CO CO ^ ^ CO *
1 a
•r
paSBS^joj^ SnisodsiQ
CO " "
lU
S
111
asnojj XfjapjosiQ
" '<** t* 1-H cq
fe
sjBuirav
0^ AlianjQ
CO " rt CO 1
3ui^i3jja:iunoQ
iCOBJtdSUOQ
*
pnqo
JO q^jJig Sut^BaonoQ
Xuoia^
SnipunoduioQ
suodBa^
paiBaono3 SniXjjB^
rt C^ b- T)H CO >o CO « O •* -H * CO ^
Counties
<
a
t:
c
>•
d
a
>
< <
1
<
J
(2:
4
•r
Xa
a
5 p:
4
£c
c
(1
4
"a
1
c4
£
1
"a
E
c
1
t
i
0)
.a O
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 43
^ i-H lO CO
cs c<i i-H ec
(M i-H (M ^
l-H (M ^
t^ T-H ^ T-H ,-H
^ ^ JJ o
O O O O 03 03
.S 03
Pi ^ bC
O) ^ El
?^ 33030303 ^^'TSb-uI oJeStnt-tH 3o3o3cS
O OOPPD Q Q W fe [X, OOOOO OWWK W K
^ T3 -S -^
MH HI I-}
44 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SAVEq
SnjQ puB poo^
1
SAV-BI
81UB£) pU^B qSI^ 'N
11 ^.11 ^1 1 cq 1 cq I III -* 1
asn9()3jj asi'Bj;
(M C^ CI rt 1
1 O: ^ ..H —
1 CI "I III
pBOH oiiqnd:
S3XTJX
!J81t; 0^ ain^iB^
1 1 C-l 1 1
ad-EDsa
II ! 1
^ IC CO II (Ml 1 I -)<
^uauiaizzaquia
IN cq 1 cq -H " " 11" CO cq II
SMBq uoi;08|g
•8
3C
S • 3uiqjn')8tQ
1 1^ II 1
^^ II "1 CO 1
Ou
1 a
A:;j8d0Jd:
paSBS^jopM Snisodsta
1 CO -it< 1 1 CO 1 ^H .-
UJ
asnojj j^jiapjosiQ f\'\ 1 CO 1-1 1 1 c-q 11^
i^
8iBUiniv
o^ A'nanjo
- . 1 1 (M 11 ill "^ 1 1
"
3ni!>iajj3^nno3
X0BIld8UOQ
Pino
JO q^Jig SuqBaouoQ
Xuop^
SuipunodmoQ
suodBa^l 1 (M ^H N 1 CO t~ CO ^ to II 1 .H CO »C CO c-
' " 1
1 a 1 O 1
M a
o o
^^ -3 h
jjee
Lenoir Lincoln Macon
Madison
McDowell
Mecklenburg
MitcheU-Montgomery
Nash
New
Hanover.....
Northampton
Onslow
1 1 .^
1 1 c
1 r 03
J g -s
H 03 03
3 (^ PL,
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 45
1
1 1 1 <M 1 1 IM <-<
Nl 1' :
1
'^
e^loqcoi -^ m n • ' l"!! eo-i'I'-HM l,-ii.l MC'lNic
i>-
Mi Hi'l
*^
1 1
^^ »** 1 (M 1 ' 1 III CO t' 1 ' ' 05
-I!
-H cd cq M —
(MCO<Mt-' i(MII^ li-liii lOi^-Hi COCCCd''
1 1 C5 lO 1 00 1-t M 1 1 1 . 1 (M 1 I^ CO
rt 1 1 cq 1 1-1 Cd 1 1 i —I 1 c« -! 111 rt -* —1 M . cq Oi T-< > s
i eo rt rt 1 1 cq 1 1 rt 1
!!i 'M
cq 1 ^
I 1
'^
1
^^
I 1 1 " 1 1 111 1 ^ 1
'^
1
" OS
1 C<l cq 1 1 till m -
II I 1 r 1 "^ I
1'
CD
^ 1 00 N « t^ it^-rt* 1 ^H.^»-(,-it^ CCI(M 1 1 1 WCC 1 <CD (M^CO^^Oi
m
Pender.
Person
Pitt
! ! £
', o «
i ^ p:
V C
7 C
• ^N5
PC
Rockingham
Rowan
Rutherford
Sampson
Scotland
Stanly
Transylvania
Tyrrell.-
Union Vance Wake
Warren
Washington
Watauga
< c
o
46 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
""
SMBI J?JBJJIip\[
ja^qSri'BxsnBpf
cq rt lO —
U3 <M rt CO -H N CSI rt
^noq')!^ ssauisng
SntOQ 'asuaotq
pqn
3utAiao3y;
COCOCOt^O CO'-HOOOOiO Ot^^^iOlO -^OOCOC^ICO
sionbiq t^ Cd CO t^ —
l-H Tjl -^JH
•g jC'jjadojj
CO ^ ^ C<I CO
o
1 Q
1-
^saouj
UJ
UJ
5
SuinjTig asnojj
t-
3ni3['Bajqasnojj
QO
CO
M Tj. 00 « (M
SM13T; liJlBaii
JO SuiiqiuBQ
-^ th
Ajaijnpv
puB noi'j'Boinio^
. (M C^ 1
j?aa3joj
'"' CO --H ^ cq t^ rt >-l (N ""!
sSBdsaJx 9iqP>io>i
CO N lr~ ^ c^^ O) -. to 1
§ c
s
<
a
C
>
03
X.
h
<
(3
1 c
c<
>
Bs
'i
c
m
s
Ot
3
PQ
a
03
03 O
"a
O
1
O
1
o3 o
a £
03
in
2
O
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 47
.-iT-l'rt t-itO^iOCO c^ 1-H C^ ^H ,-. i-H
C003t~-000 COC<J»-t •-tooioi—icD i>-oc^i:Da5 loosos-^eo >oocqco
,_i,-ii—« -r}< lO'-H i-iOO-^iO lOi-Hi-fCOT-H C^iOC^C^CO 1—
C^ lO CO CO OO CO i—
Oi TJH O O <M CC
^H ^ T-1 !>.,—( CO
oocoiMOsb- loeoTj^O'-' c^icqoco'X'
iC C<)
t^ CO *
i-~i -^ i^a
»-H 00 O -^ lO lO c^
<-H 03 CO GO CO
^ '<*^ o
CO i-H 1-H
1>- 1-1 ,-H CO
Y-l 1—I 00 C<l (M (M
C^ r-l -^JH -^ t-» to cO^HCqirsiC cDCOiOCOiJti C<l^-c
CO I (N ZO I CO »-i
5 -5 iJ o
u o o u
^ ^ « » ^
O O Q Q Q
^ ^
' x) -S
Q Q W Pn fn
S5
Vvl (» IH )H )H o o o o o
O o
„ ^ § s
^ ^ D g ®
3 03 o3 d 0)
o IX tEi in B
1=1 c>
"g ^ -f -S I
W W W A .^
48 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Bsaawiipao IM —
sAi'B'j vUB^nilXr
ja!jq3n'Bj8nBj\[
CO o .1 CO -H »o *"* rt 1(5 IM
3nioQ 'asnaoi'j
"^ tH
pqii
SniAiaoay;
puB AuaoJB'j
'^irSMC^OO eoi-tooooeo t^ooococa ccows-*-^
•
eaonbt'j
3ut')B0p£O'jni
c^o^«Cf^f^lH(CMOt»o-cto cortcooooi to^oo-* tot~e«e<5co cot-* (MCO IM^H^HCCCq CQCOt^f-l
3 0^ jOntni
M CO " •H 1-1
-
8
IsaDui
'"'
1
aurajng asnog
'"' '^ CO CO
i?
3ap[Bajqasnog
o c.o^ t^ CO lO —1 CM a> o o» 1-1
Ol CO *—
rt cq >-l
e/A^i q:HB8H
" "
JO aunqniBQ
*"* CO CO oq y-l Oi
puB noii^'Borajo
J
'"' >-l (M 2 "^ * (M *
XjaSJO^
U5 M oo —1 IM OOCO IN'-H.-lt-C^ r-< .-( * 1
ssBdsajx aiqioioJ
CO .. (M N e<> (M rt U5 rt
Counties
c
c
I
1 J
0.
«
*c 1
1^ 1
i
IS
1
1
Q
o
ic
<I
0.
:s
1
ii
a
g
1
1
>o
csw
Jt
i
1
c
Q
en
c
2
o
c
1
op
C3
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 49
1 1 1 1 '^ 1 I
'"'
1 1 r!^
l<MrH«n 1 -^ l^-i f CO —< COlO 1 1 1 iiiCO lo-3<COrtii ,I^|| s
1 1 C<1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1
'"'
1 1
"^
1 I
'"'
1 I 1 1
'"'
1 1
>ra
t^-^Clt^-^ 0-<tlCOOCO l>-'r!HC<l-<*H»0 ^^<MCS(M^ ClO'O^I-^'^*^ r^cD»0-tH
03
I-l 1 1 1 -* 1 1 1 1 ,1 1 1 1 O <>5 1 1 1 1 1 CO 1 1 1 C^ 1 1-1 I 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
^^
1 I
'^
1 1 1 " 1 1
o
1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 CO —1 1 '^
! 1 I
to
lOCOlMCO t^ccosoao CO^CO-^CO r- > • il>. ^COt^ i^hcO OO-^-**-!
CO
t^
1 1 tM 1 1 ?0 ^ w . , lIlCI .Hiti. ..,.:},,,, -Tt^ 1 1 1
C3
-* 1 1 ! lO t:~ 1 o rt 1 IffqiM .-lOO 1 1 1 rtC^ 1 1<MC>] TjllM—It^
i
rt.-l-* 1 10i-l(M !* OICO Ice 1 rtlN-H IcO COCO-H Irt^ lyrs Irt o
1 1 1 1 1 1 O OJ 1 dllCC t^llT-il .H^O^IICVI -H..(t^
CO
Pender
Person
Pitt... Polk.
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson..
Rockingham
Rowan
.
Rutherford
Sampson..
_
Scotland..
Stanly
Stokes
Surry
L
Swain
Tyrrell
Union Vance Wake
Warren
Watauga
Wayne Wilkes Wilson Yadkin..
Yancey
o
H
50 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
S9IiUnOQ
Oi SB IB'JOX
« ^ c< 1 t~ S;
t- CO ^
c^
OS
CO
oc
02
C<
CO
CO 00 cc s
sno3UBiposij\[
raOr-.co^ cq^usioTO 23"*"°°'"' (MMOooto
ssBdsaJX
<M -^ CO CO T—( »-H rt rt
japuBis
'"'
uoi^onpag
" (N ^ CM CO Tjl rt —c -J.
savtjt; looqog
Ajaqqoy;
so lO « o CO *"*
[
^oiH
s3
_C
COo
1 Q
It
adBy;
^
UJ
UJ
Ajntj8<j
" CO CO cq ^
fe
;anpnoosij\[ I'Biorgo
=
jaAig; Sni^onj^sqo
otiqnj 3ni')oni^sqo
aouBsmjyi
" C^ rH
aajSaQ pnooag
—Japanj\[
CO rt rt CO --I CO o CO rt rt CO
aajSaa ^sirj —japjnj\[
i
ac
•g
<
e
ci
<
>C
<
C
1 c
c
< <•
>
>
c
c
1
a
soc
c
°
c3
s
c« 03
4)
2
o
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 51
(>) C<l CO (M lO c^ coo ooa5t>.o»o
(M CO ^ Tj< ,-H CO
Tt< LO I-- 03 -rH
lO cc ^ c^ -•
C) ^ 1-H CO to
»0 ^ (M >0 O ^ ^ OO ^ Ir^
UO -^ CO --H
!-« T-t QO rti
^ CO CO ^
»—I £>. "TtH CO '-< C^ ^ i-i to ^
o o o o o
^ 3 ra CI ro
O u P G Q
3 03 cS
O K K
o3 ID
Ti /ii X! -a ^
W K M ^ v^
52 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
oj St: iB^ox
OS CO -:f< T-H U- » -H t- oi o r^ -f -r 1- t--. O^i OCO ltOo "TCT
snoauBiiaosipxr
ost^co^^ .o-.oiC'-ic !:o-jDt^-^ri oc^-^oooo
CO -—"O ,—,1—.1—(1-ht-h
ssBdsajj,
CO M —1 C-l '"'
*^^
'"*
aapnBis
M
uoponpag
t-H CO c^ " to —1 -H -* -H
SAVBT^ 100 qog
C<I r-l (M
Xjaqqoy^
CO t^
*o!a
"
3 aaoijjo Supstsay;
" CM CO C^ CO CO CO *< "
5
Q
1-
9dBy;
(M
UJ
iCjntJaj
C<1 T-( lO —1 iM
S;
}onpiioosi],\[ lUwigQ
jOAty; Bia^tonjjsqo
XBMqSijj
ot^qnj; gupoiu^sqo
aou-Bsm^
^ " >o
39.IS8Q pnooag —japjnj\[
-* N .-1 t^ ! rj< -^ CO to (M CT N -H Tt< (M «
—japjnj^
^~* " oq
.2
§ c
o
c
o
ao
u
'o
1-^
oc
3
aO
03
C
-5
o
Q
3
c
>, ua
ao
"S
o
oo
1O
o
p.
a
o3
O
2 cO
c
O
o
a
03
a
o3
c
1
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 53
CO(MOOO-rti (MaiO-SMO OOOCnr-HCO (MOOC00005 »0<MCOOC1 IO^-tOO-t«00
ocoooiraco (TOTfOOiM ooco>o>ooo -m If} c-i -^ ao (m-hiotki^- >o>ra-j<oo—1
5
03--HQO'1-C1 C'lOOOiCOCS C<ieo<OCOCO COt^ 't^C^ C^ICTi'SHOt^ -+MO00t^ CO
1 1 ! C>) 1 lO 1 ^ IM •! 1 1 1 1 1 r-< — 1 , 1 C-l 1 -H ^ W 1 C.) — c g
III!! I 1 ! 1 1 III!! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '^ 1 1 " 1 S
I-hIII rt-frtliM rtl, — — I— ,— , ^c^rti.
00
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1
'"'
1 1 1 1 1
iT*4i-^i ICC''' I'M'' l'''Tt^ lOO^HCO— t^'Tt*!' <M
•*<
r''i»-H CO'C-a^O) IT-Hiiirj i''i. — <:OC<»'i 'I'll §
Nil! M"" 1 Mill rNl rl|
o
1 1 1 1 1 "^ 1 1 1 1 1
'^
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '^"111 1 1 1 1 1
to
INirn INI INN INN INN
CO
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ^ 1 1 1 1 'till ! 1 1 1 1
CO 1 l-i^rH M-^^MCl ^HCOt^ '— ifHrH flM CqOiiO '— lO»0 ' > i~-t
lO
1 1 1 1 1 1 i-H ' 1 1 11—11 1 1 1 1 I ' 1 .M 1 1 1 1 1 1 I o
nder
rquimans
rson
tt Ik
mdolph
beson
ckingham
wan
itherford.
otland
inly
skes
rry--
ain
ansylvania
rrelL.
lion
nee ake
arren
itauga
Ison
dkin
noey
1
o
rtrtpHpnrt P^MWaJM j2^^^^ ^^^;S^
54 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATEMENT E
From
July 1, 1928
to
July 1, 1929
From
July 1, 1929
to
July 1, 1930
Number of criminal actions disposed of
Males
Females
Corporations
Totals
White
Colored
Indian
Corporations
Totals
Convictions, including submissions
Acquitted
Nolle pros ,
Otherwise disposed of
Totals
Murder—first degree
Murder—second degree
Manslaughter
Rape
Assault with intent to rape
Arsons .-.
Burglary—first degree
Burglary—second degree
Forgery
Larceny
Intoxicating liquors
Other crimes and misdemeanors
Totals
15,848
960
2
10,422
6,321
65
2
11,946
1,888
2,883
93
3
277
147
26
75
21
59
358
2,874
5,307
7,663
16,810
14 , 794
936
2
16,810
9,770
5,904
56
2
16,810
10,948
1,980
2,733
71
16,810
10
258
163
19
66
19
2
61
450
2,781
4,379
7,524
16,810
15,732
15 , 732
15,732
15 , 732
15,732
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 55
STATEMENT F
Alphabetical List of Ckimes
Name of Offense
From
July 1,1928
to
July 1,1929
From
July 1, 1929
to
July 1, 1930
Abandonment
Abduction
Abortion
Affray
Arson
Assault and battery
Assault with deadly weapon
Assault with intent to rape
Attempt to burn dwelling
Attempt to poison
Bastardy
Bigamy
Bribery
Buggery
Burglary—first degree
Bvurglary—second degree
Biu-ning other than arson
Carrying concealed weapons
Compounding felony
Concealing birth of child
Conspiracy
Counterfeiting
Cruelty to animals
Disorderly house
Disposing of mortgaged property
Disturbing meetings
Election laws
Embezzlement
Escape
Failure to list taxes
Failvire to work public road
False pretense
Fish and game laws
Food and drug laws
Forcible trespass
Forgery
Fornication and adultery
Gambling or lottery
Health laws
Housebreaking (storebreaking, etc.)
House burning .
Incest
Injury to property
Intoxicating liquors
Larcency and receiving
Libel
License, practicing profession without.
License, doing business without
Manslaughter
Military laws
Muncipal ordinances
Murder—first degree
Murder—second degree
191
23
10
155
21
634
,337
75
59
21
429
19
215
89
107
8
136
50
156
4
179
48
2
161
358
146
219
2
,070
10
20
77
,307
,874
176
17
7
181
19
683
,242
66
2
48
7
21
2
61
12
354
29
71*
152
94
7
1
173
49
131
450
130
95
7
1,381
16
10
62
4,379
2,781
6
147
12
3
277
5
7
163
14
10
258
56 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATEMENT F—Continued
Name of Offense
From
July 1, 1928
to
July 1,1929
From
July 1, 192'J
to
July 1,1930
Nuisance
Obstructing public highway-
Obstructing river
Official misconduct
Perj ury
Rape
Resisting officer
Riot
Robbery
School laws
Seduction
Slander
Trespass
Miscellaneous
Totals-
9
40
26
108
180
12
70
19
132
1,420
16,810
26
46
19
99
4
182
6
84
16
86
1,584
15,732
Addendttm to Statement F
The offenses given below are included in "Miscellaneous," but have not yet been added to printed
list of crimes. The prostitution cases were included in "disorderly house" cases for 1928-29, but for
1929-30 are included in "miscellaneous" and more specifically below:
Name of Offense
From
July 1, 1928
to
July 1,1929
From
July 1,1929
to
July 1, 1930
Non-support
*Prostitution
Reckless driving (or speeding)
-
Vagrancy
Violating automobile laws
Violating banking laws
Worthless check
48
471
68
121
Totals-
325
1,033
64
109
477
40
100
10
331
1,131
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 57
Fees Transmitted by Attorney General to State Treasurer since February Term, 1 928, Through February Term, 1 930
State V. Gerukas
State V. Jones
State V. Earp
State V. Golden
State V. Corriher
State V. J. W. Hughes
State V. Palmer
State V. Alston
State V. Lawrence
W. M. Person v. Doughton, Commissioner
State V. Whitfield
State V. Hargett
State V. Parrish and Hester
State V. Cling Ashe
State V. Roy Rhyne
State V. Ola Grant
State V. Weston
State V. Ed Moore
State V. D. K. Grant, Jr
State V. Vickers
State V. Daniels
State V. Palmer
State V. Bell
State V. Shew
State T. Craft
State V. Williams
State V. Dalton
State V. Johnson
State V. Fitzhugh Lane
State V. O'Neal
State V. Cagle
State V. Burleson, et al i
State V. Sneed
State V. John Jones
State V. Morris
State V. Fulford _
Murphy v. Corporation Commission (U. S. Sup. Ct.)
Total
12.20
10.00
13.30
13.30
16.60
10.00
14.40
10.00
26.50
4.40
10.00
1.5.50
20.00
14.40
11.10
10.00
14.40
15.50
13.30
13.30
11.10
16.60
10.00
12.20
23.30
10.00
12.20
19.90
10.00
3.30
17.70
38.80
12.20
12.20
10.00
10.00
20.00
S 517.70
OPINIONS TO THE GOVERNOR
Board of Chiropractors—Appointment op Member
6 September, 1928.
Question is raised in relation to the appointment of a chiropractor on
the State Board of Chiropractors Examiners out of the following circum-stances
:
The present Board contains a vacancy with one other member unavailable
for the object of the Board, at present. The annual meeting of the Chiro-practors
in the State failed to recommend five of their membership from
whom you should appoint one, as provided in C. S. 6711.
It is exceedingly important to the profession, as it appears that this
vacancy should be filled. The object, of course, in requiring the presentation
of five members to you is to give you some latitude of discretion in appoint-ing
the particular member. This, of course, in an emergency you can waive,
for the ultimate power of appointment is in you.
Dr. Frizelle has been unanimously recommended by the Board of Chiro-practors.
There is nothing in the statute, we think, that prevents you from
making a valid appointment of Dr. Frizelle, in the absence of five recom-mendations,
if you choose to waive that condition.
Smoky Mountain Park Act—Construction
1 October, 1928.
The whole object of the Smoky Mountain Park Act was to provide a
fund by the State of North Carolina by use of which lands could be pur-chased
by agreement or compensation paid to land owners in case of con-demnation
proceedings.
In Section No. 8 of the Act the fund derived from the sale of bonds is
called "The North Carolina Park Fund" and it is to be disbursed only for
the purposes provided in the Act.
Section No. 17 declares that "this fund shall be wholly devoted to the
acquisition of lands lying within the State of North Carolina and within
the boundary designated in the Acts."
After providing for the appointment of the Commission, that commission,
in Section No. 3, is "authorized and directed to acquire title in the name
of the State of North Carolina to the lands described therein."
In Section No. 18: "The commission, as an agency of the State of North
Carolina is vested with the power of eminent domain to acquire in the
name and in behalf of the State of North Carolina and to condemn, for
park purposes, the land described." It is acquiring title in the name of the
State of North Carolina and it condemns land, also, in the name of the
State of North Carolina.
Section No. 22 requires this land, so acquired, shall, by purchase or con-demnation,
be conveyed to the United States by and in the name of the
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 59
State of North Carolina by the Governor thereof, attested by the Secretary
of State and sealed with the great seal.
Section No. 23 requires all appearances and any suits, actions or pro-ceedings
to be in the name of the State of North Carolina.
Section No. 25 requires the commission "to institute condemnation pro-ceedings
and declare that upon payment of the award rendered in any such
proceeding the title of the land described in the petition and award shall
vest in fee simple in the State of North Carolina."
It proceeds and requires the "State of North Carolina to pay the award
within two years from this date" or be subject to a penalty.
Throughout the whole proceeding, it seems the Commission is a simple
agent of the State, acting for and in behalf of the State and, this being
true, certainly, the State of North Carolina is a proper party to the pro-ceedings.
This, notwithstanding the fact that the commission itself, de-scribing
itself as acting for and in behalf of the State of North Carolina,
might, also, have been a party.
Thus the General Assembly has provided a fund to pay the costs of the
purchase or condemnation of the area devoted to this park in the State
of North Carolina and has, in practical effect, appropriated this fund for
those purposes.
Section No. 37 of the Act was written with the intent to provide ma-chinery
by the use of which the owner of the land could be enjoined from
impairing the value of the land in the interval between the time of the is-suance
of the summons and the final award. Pending such proceedings
and to meet a condition arising during such pendency, the latter clause of
Section No. 27 was incorporated in the Act, as follows:
In the event that the petitioner shall elect not to acquire
title to the lands protected by the said restraining order, then
such land owner or land owners interested therein shall have
the right to have the damages suffered by them, assessed in
said proceedings, in the same manner and under the same
practice as now applying when injunctions are dismissed upon
the hearing or upon final judgment.
If the section had stopped here, then it would be clear that these damages,
so assessed, would have to be paid from the State of North Carolina Park
Fund. In other words, the judgment would be against the State of North
Carolina with this payment, of course, limited by the amount of the North
Carolina Park Fund. At the end of the section, however, there was
attached this proviso:
Provided, that the State of North Carolina shall be under no
obligations or liability for the payment of any such damages
so assessed.
It is apparent that Section No. 27, with this proviso, was written to meet
what is essentially an exceptional, and will be unusual, case.
The proviso itself, then, is necessarily limited to that particular case.
All that the Commission would have to do, in order to avoid any conse-quences
from- this proviso, is to be sure that they are right before they go
ahead. In other words, be sure they wanted the land before they filed the
petition and protected that land from devastation or waste, during the
proceedings.
60 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
This proviso can in no sense affect the liability of the State of North
Carolina to pay the price of the land when pui-chased or to pay the award
when it is condemned, the fund from which it is to be paid having been
already provided and apportioned by the General Assembly.
Reward—Who Entitled
15 October, 1928.
It seems that the Governor of the State, acting under C. S. 4545, offered
a reward of $250.00 to anyone who should apprehend and deliver Christo-pher
Columbo, for the murder of J. Hiram Meadows, to the person and
place named in the offer of reward.
This crime was committed in Jones County and Mr. F. M. Jenkins is the
coroner of that county. Mr. Jenkins was diligent in collecting the evidence
in the matter, taking Columbo into custody; gave him the 3rd degree and,
in consequence, he confessed. Thereupon, Columbo was delivered to the
Sheriff of the county and at the September term, 1928, of the Jones County
Superior Court, Judge R. A. Nunn presiding, Columbo was convicted and
sentenced to a term of fifteen to twenty years in the State's prison.
Upon this statement you inquire whether or not Mr. Jenkins is entitled
to the reward offered by the State.
Previous to 1913 (see C. S. 4555), no acting officer was entitled to any
reward offered for the arrest of a criminal. The General Assembly (Chap-ter
132 Public Laws of 1913) permitted such officers to receive rewards for
making arrests, provided, the arrest was not made for a crime committed
within the county of such officer. Mr. Jenkins, in the proceedings leading
to the discovery of the crime, seems to have been acting as coroner of the
County of Jones. The coroner's function, in ferreting out crimes and those
who have committed the crime are judicial. There are, then, two reasons
why, as a matter of strict legal right, Mr. Jenkins is not entitled to the re-ward
offered in this case:
(1) The arrest was made by him as an officer of Jones County for a
crime committed within that county, so the reward is forbidden by Statute.
(2) Mr. Jenkins, in the investigation of the crime and in his dealings
with the criminal, was exercising a judicial functon.
If, therefore, he had a pecunary interest in reaching a conclusion against
Columbo in this investigation, his action would have been illegal and un-constitutional.
Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S.-510.
Offices—Inconsistent Duties
15 October, 1928.
It seems that Mr. G. E. Hoover is Chief of Police in the town of Belmont.
Application has been made to the Governor, under C. S. 1468, to appoint
him also a Justice of the Peace of the township in which Belmont is lo-cated.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 61
We have heretofore orally advised against making this appointment, be-cause
the duties of the two offices are wholly inconsistent. Of course, the
constitutional provision that prohibits double office holding. Article No. 14
section 7, does not apply to Justices of the Peace and so does not apply to
this situation. There is, however, a principle of common law and this is
founded upon the soundest of policies,—that no one should hold two offices,
when the duties of those two offices do or may, in exercising the functions
of the office, conflict. It is the authority conferred by the office which affects
this and not the subsequent exercise of that authority. That, therefore, Mr.
Hoover, if appointed to the office of Justice of the Peace, does not intend to
try cases, would not at all be material in determining the wisdom of his
appointment to this position. It would be intolerable, of course, for one
to swear out a warrant before himself, execute the warrant, and try the
defendant. That would be a mixing of functions, which the common law
prohibits.
Electoral College—Canvass of Votes
30 November, 1928.
As you no doubt know, the Board of State Canvassers is required to meet
on the Tuesday following the fourth Monday after the election, which is
December 4th, (next Tuesday). They are required to canvass the votes
cast for Presidential Electors. After they have canvassed them, they shall
make an abstract of all votes cast and shall deliver the same to the Sec-retary
of State, together with the original returns of the several counties,
to be filed in his office. He shall, then, under his hand and seal of his
office, certify to the Governor the names of as many persons receiving the
highest number of votes for electors for President and Vice-President of
the United States as the State may be entitled to in the Electoral College.
Our Statute then proceeds, C. S. section 6012:
The Governor shall thereupon immediately issue his proc-lamation
and cause the same to be published in such daily
newspapers as may be published in the city of Raleigh, where-in
he shall set forth the names of the persons duly elected as
electors, and warn each of them to attend at the capitol in the
city of Raleigh at noon on the second Monday of January next
after his election, at which time the said electors shall meet,
and in case of the absence or ineligibility of any elector chosen,
or if the proper number of electors shall for any cause be
deficient, those present shall forthwith elect from the citizens
of the State so many persons as will supply the deficiency,
and the persons so chosen shall be electors to vote for the
President and Vice-President of the United States. And the
Governor shall, on or before the second Monday of January,
make out three lists of the names of the said persons so elect-ed
and appointed electors and cause the same to be delivered
to them., as directed by the act of Congress.
By an act of Congress, approved May 29, 1928, our State's statute, sec-tion
6012 above, was modified to some extent. Electors are now required
to meet and cast their ballots on the first Wednesday in January next fol-lowing
their appointment, which will be January 2, 1929.
62 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
It is made the duty of the Governor, as soon as practicable after he re-ceives
the certificate of the Secretary of State, evidencing the election of
these electors, to communicate by registered mail, under the seal of the
State, to the Secretary of State of the United States a certificate of such
ascertainment of the electors appointed and state fairly the names of such
electors and the canvass or other ascertainment, under the laws of such
State, of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose ap-pointment
any or all votes have been given or cast.
It is, also, the duty of the Governor of the State to deliver to the electors
of such State, on or before the day on which they are required to meet
(January 2, 1929), six duplicates original of the same certificate under the
seal of the State.
Thinking that perhaps your attention had not been called to this change,
is our excuse for writing this letter.
Purchasing Agent—Surry County
4 December, 1928.
You require an opinion from this office in relation to the appointment
by you of an officer created by Chapter 141, Public Local Laws of 1925 for
Surry County, called "Purchasing Agent, Tax Supervisor and Bookkeeper",
his term under the original appointment being about to expire on the first
Monday in December, 1928. Section 11 of the act declares that this officer
shall 'be appointed by the Governor of North Carolina for a term of two
years from the first Monday in December, 1926, and until his successor is
appointed and qualifies. At the expiration of the term of office or vacancy
from any other cause in the oflRce, it is declared to be the duty of the Gov-ernor
to appoint a successor. Among other things, this act abolishes the
office of county treasurer and imposes the duties of county treasurer upon
this officer.
The question presented by you to this office is:
How far do the provisions of the county fiscal control act,
Chapter 146, Public Laws of 1927, effect this office with rela-tion
to the appointment of a successor to the present in-cumbent?
We can find nothing in the act of 1927 which at
all impairs the authority of the Governor to fill the vacancy
in this office occurring on the first Monday in December.
That act, however, does require the boards of commissioners of all the
counties of the State to appoint a county accountant or to impose the
duties of such county accountant upon any other officer of the county ex-cept
the sheriff or tax collector, or the county treasurer. The person hold-ing
this office, then, cannot under the circumstances hereinbefore detailed
act as county accountant. We deem it unnecessary to go further, how-ever,
than to declare that in the opinion of this office you have ample au-thority—
indeed, are required—to fill the vacancy occurring on the first
Monday in December, 1928.
biennial report of the attorney general 63
Boundary Line—Monuments
7 December, 1928.
In your letter of December 3rd, you state that complaint has been made
to you that private persons have been interfering with the markers, recently
set up by the Commission appointed by you and the Governor of South
Carolina to mark the boundary line between the two States. Upon this
you inquire what is your authority to deal with these offenders.
The last clause of C. S. section 7396 is in these words:
The Governor is also authorized,, whenever in his judgment
it shall be deemed necessary, to protect or establish the
boundary line between this State and any other State, to in-stitute
and prosecute in the name of the State of North Car-olina
any and all such actions, suits, or proceedings at law,
or in equity, and to direct the Attorney General or such other
person as he may designate, to conduct and prosecute such ac-tions,
suits or proceedings.
One method, which we think can be resorted to, is found in C. S. 4319,
which, so far as material, is as follows:
If any person, firm or corporation shall knowingly remove,
alter or deface any land mark in any wise whatsoever, or shall
knowingly cause such removal, alteration or defacement to be
done, such person, firm or corporation shall be guilty of a mis-demeanor.
It might be contended, with some force, that this section applied only to
private land marks and not to those fixed to establish the boundaries be-tween
States. We think, however, that the terms of the Statute are fully
broad enough to include such land marks.
Emergency Appropriation—Furniture for Mansion
18 December, 1928.
You ask my opinion as to whether an allocation out of the emergency
appropriation for the purchase of furniture for the Executive Mansion can
be made.
As I understand it, the need for this arises out of the fact that for the
past four years the Mansion has been furnished, very largely, with the
furniture belonging to Governor McLean. At the expiration of the pres-ent
administration, this furniture will be removed and there is necessity
of other furniture for the Mansion.
The Board of Public Buildings and Grounds has approved a sum not to
exceed Five Thousand ($5,000.) Dollars in the purchasing of furniture for
the Mansion.
I am of the opinion that, under these circumstances, the Governor and
Counsel of State have authority to make an allocation from the emergency
fund for this purpose.
64 biennial report of the attorney general
Febble-Minded Children—Settlement
21 December, 1928.
In Re: Alice and Elizabeth Culbrathe
We have considered carefully the letter of Mr. Paul A. Green to you in
relation to the two children alluded to above. It seems from Mr. Green's
letter that the two children were committed to the Wrentham State School
for the Feeble-minded in Massachusetts—Alice, May 20, 1917, being then
five years of age; Elizabeth, April 26, 1915, being then eight years of age.
The mother of these children died in Fayetteville about nine years ago.
The father died in the same place in December, 1924. Mr. Green further
states that at the time of his death the father had resided in Fayetteville
about ten years. Upon this Mr. Green claims that the two feeble-minded
girls are proper charges of the State of North Carolina and ask their
transfer to some institution in this State.
It is entirely clear, we think, that these two girls were committed to the
Massachusetts institution at a time at which they had a settlement in that
state. Their parents evidently had them committed to the institution before
they removed to North Carolina, else there could have been no commission
to the Massachusetts institution. The fact that the parents afterwards
moved to North Carolina and acquired a settlement here—if they did so
acquire a settlement—would not, in the opinion of this office, effect the
settlement of these children in Massachusetts in such way as to transfer
it to North Carolina.
As at present advised, then, we can see no claim that Massachusetts has
upon North Carolina to have these children transferred.
Offices—Inconsistent
14 January, 1929.
If you will look over your file and get the letter written by this office
to Mr. W. W. Leinster, Private Secretary to Governor McLean, you will
find the ruling made by us upon application to appoint a policeman a
Justice of the Peace.
We can add nothing to that opinion, except to reaffirm it and cite the
principle of the common law, as laid down in 46 C. J., page 941
:
At common law, the holding of one office does not of itself
disqualify the incumbent from holding another office at the
same time, provided, there is no inconsistency in the func-tions
of the two offices in question. But where the functions
of two offices are inconsistent, they are regarded as incom-patible.
There can be no doubt that the functions of a policeman and those of a
Justice of the Peace are wholly inconsistent, therefore, reiterating our
former opinion, we advise that the Governor's office do not appoint a city
or a town policeman a Justice of the Peace.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 65
A. & Y. R. R.
—
Litigation
4 February, 1929.
We have received your letter of February 1, enclosing the letter of Mr.
Kirkman, General Manager of the High Point, Thomasville and Denton
Railroad Company. In that letter he inquires:
Is there not some way that the State of North Carolina can
take over the A. & Y. R. R. and lease it to this company, in
order that it may be run as a competitive line?
As the General Assembly is in session at the present time, no doubt, if
it chose to do so, it could pass an Act which would be legal and constitu-tionally
valid. This, however, would require the expenditure of a least
$4,000,000.
You, no doubt, are familiar with the fact that on March 7, 1924 the
Southern Railroad Company began an action in the United States Court
for the Western district of North Carolina, to appoint receivers for the
A. & Y. Ry. Company; to sell the franchise and property of that railroad
company to pay an outstanding indebtedness of about $2,300,000. and, in
practical effect, to place the railroad in such condition that the Southern
could, itself, secure it as part of its general system, without paying prob-ably
anything near its value. This resulted in litigation on the part of
the State commencing, also, in 1924 and continuing in various forms up to
a few weeks ago. This litigation was intended, in the first instance, to
declare the deed void under which the Southern Railroad Co. and the
Atlantic Coast Line dismembered the old Cape Fear & Yadkin Valley Rail-road.
This litigation for various reasons, has been so far unsuccessful.
Indeed, on January 14, 1929, the Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond
held that the State had no such interest in the property as would permit
it to intervene in the action pending in the district court of the Western
District of North Carolina.
If this decision of the Court of Appeals is permitted to stand without
carrying it to the United State Supreme Court for review, then the South-ern
Railway Company will sell the A. & Y. under a decree of foreclosure.
At this sale, of course, any person or combination of persons desiring to
purchase that railroad and its franchise can bid. The position of the
Southern Railway Company, owning all of the stock and all the outstand-ing
bonds of the A. & Y., would be so advantageous at the bidding, that
it would be exceedingly difficult to purchase the A. & Y. without paying
an extravagant price for it. If, therefore, the High Point, Thomasville
& Denton Railroad Company wishes to purchase, it will have an oppor-tunity
to do so at that sale.
Of course, the State of North Carolina, under section 4 of article 5 of
the Constitution, could not lend the aid of its credit to the High Point, etc.
Railroad, without submitting the question to a vote of the People of this
State.
We have attempted, in this letter, to give you a short resume of the sit-uation
as it stands at the present time.
66 biennial report of the attorney general
Justice of the Peace—Revocation of Commission
25 February, 1929.
There has just been handed this office letter received by your office from
an attorney-at-law^ of Salisbury. Under Chapter 116, Public Laws of
1927, the Governor is authorized to revoke any conunission issued by him
or his predecessor appointing any person a justice of the peace, when,
upon complaint, the Governor is satisfied that the interest of the public
would best be served by the revocation of said commission. This is carried
in the N. C. Code of 1927 as a part of C. S. 1468.
Unless the ju&*tice of the peace has been appointed by the Governor or
his predecessor, there is no authority in this act for the Governor to pro-ceed
for the removal of such justice of the peace.
In this case I advise that you ascertain whether Mr. was ap-pointed
a justice of the peace by the Governor's office. If he was so ap-pointed,
I suggest that Mr. be notified to file formal complaint,
asking for the revocation of Mr. commission, if he so wishes.
Thereupon, should be notified and an investigation had. The Gov-ernor
can conduct this investigation himself, by having the parties appear
before him here, or depute some proper officer to do so. I think the man
is entitled to a hearing before his commission is revoked.
If this justice of the peace was not appointed by the Governor, but
elected by the people, appointed by the General Assembly, or by the clerk
of the superior court, the Governor would have no authority to proceed for
his removal.
If I can aid further in the matter, I will be glad to do so.
National Banks—Taxation
7 March, 1929.
We have considered, carefully, the letter of Governor Christiansen of
Minnesota and the accompanying resolutions.
The method of taxing National Banks, as adopted in North Carolina and
which has been in force in this State for many years has been sustained,
if not directly, certainly in practical effect, in First National Bank of
Aberdeeyi v. Chehalis County, 165 U. S., 440.
In 1923, Congress, by an act approved March 4, 1923, enacted a substi-tute
section for the old section 5219 in the revised statutes of the United
States. It has been understood that this amendment avoided the difficulty
created by the decision of the United States Supreme Court, in The Mer-chants
National Bank of Richmond v. The City of Richmond, 256 U. S.
685. It was held in that case that the old section 5219 providing that State
taxation of shares of National Bank stock should not be at a greater rate
than is assessed on other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citi-zens
of the State, Is not limited to protecting National Bank shareholders
from higher taxation than is assessed against shares in State banks, but
the expression "moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens" in-
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 67
eludes investments in securities that would be money at interest and other
evidence of indebtedness, such as normally entered into banking.
The Constitution of Virginia allowed classification of cei'tain property
for the purpose of taxation. In pursuance of this authority, in the city of
Richmond, $1.75 was levied on each one hundred ($100.) dollars invested
in bank stock, whether National or State, while the rate was only $.95 on
each one hundred ($100.) dollars valuation of intangible property, in-cluding
bonds, notes and other evidences of indebtedness. Though the lat-ter
class was taxed in the hands of individual citizens, the court held this
such discrimination as would render invalid the tax levied by the city of
Richmond upon the shares of stock in National Banks, though the same
tax was levied upon the shares of stock in state banks. Thus the court,
in interpreting the act, brought such tax upon national banks in conflict
with the tax upon investments made by individual citizens.
As hereinbefore said, it was thought that the act of March 4, 1923, was
intended to meet the condition arising out of this decision of the United
States Supreme Court, but, in 1st National Bank v. The City of Hartford,
273 U. S., 548, the court held that the amendment did no more than put
into express words that, which according to the repeated decisions of this
court, was implied before.
By its terms, the amendment excluded from moneyed capital only those
personal investments which are in competition with the business of Na-tional
Banks. Consequently, it was held that the act of Wisconsin, ex-empting
from taxation all moneys or debts due or to come due and all
stocks and bonds as discriminatory against National Banks, when evidence
established that moneyed capital within such exemption was used in sub-stantial
competition with business of the National Banks and the shares
of stock in said National Banks were taxed. See, also Georgetown Na-tional
Bank v. McFarland 273 U. S., 568.
It is said that there are thirty-one States in the Union, which permit
classification of what we know as solvent credits into a class by themselves,
for the purpose of taxation. Some of those States exempts this class of
property from taxation at all—notably Wisconsin and New York. As a
result of these decisions of the United States Supreme Court, two bills
were introduced into the House of Representatives, at the recent session of
Congress. These bills, if they had been enacted into a law would permit
the taxation of National Bank shai-es at no greater rate than that assessed
within the taxing district of the hanks location upon real estate used for
mercantile or like business purposes, nor higher than is assessed upon
shares of corporations engaged in the business of receiving deposits sub-ject
to check or the capital of individuals likewise employed in that busi-ness.
Naturally, all these States which have classified intangible or sol-vent
credits for a lower rate of taxation, or which have exempted them
entirely, are very much interested in the enactment of these bills into a
statute. Though we are not informed in regard to it, we suppose that
Minnesota is one of this class of States.
As conditions are in North Carolina now, we are not particularly in-terested
in what shall be done by Congress, in this regard. Our statutes
in no particular discriminate against National Banks. Moneyed capital
68 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
in the hands of individual holders, where used in such way as to come in
competition with National Banks, is taxed at identically the same rate as
the shares of stock in National Banks ai*e taxed. In other words, this
class of property is in no particular favored at the expense of National
Banks, either in the rate of taxation or the assessment of its value.
There is, however, a determined effort in the State of North Carolina to
adopt a constitutional amendment which will permit the classification of
intangibles, particularly for taxation. If this should be adopted by the
people and the Legislature should act under the authority thus conferred
upon it, then North Carolina would be in the same situation with reference
to National Banks as are the other States, which are now complaining of
the Federal Statute permitting the taxation of those institutions. It is,
therefore, not vital that we should act now, in conjunction with these other
States, but it may become so later. Indeed, if the bills to which we have
referred, formally pending before Congress, should be re-introduced into
the new Congress and become a law, the taxation of National Banks would
be also simplified for us.
We are writing thus fully, so that you may understand the exact position
which the State occupies in relation to the taxation of these Federal in-stitutions,
so that you can determine whether or not you will bring the
enclosed resolutions to the attention of the General Assembly.
Extradition—Solicitor
13 March, 1929.
In re: Extradition of J. F. Bullard
We have considered the extradition papers in the above matter and,
also, the letter of Honorable Woodus Kellum, which accompanies them.
Mr, Kellum is, evidently, laboring under a misapprehension. The solici-tors
of the respective districts are never required to make an affidavit. If
Mr. Kellum will examine Appendix VI, page 654 of the third volume of
C. S., he will see the kind of paper that he is required to certify.
The papers sent you do not comply with the rules and regulations found
at the place above referred to, nor with the Federal Statutes, which reg-ulate
such extradition. In the first place, they do not contain the pro-ceedings
and judgment of the Recorders Court. They do contain what
appears to be a certified copy of the original warrant of the Justice of the
Peace upon which the defendant was arrested. The clerk of the Superior
Court should have certified, under his hand and, seal, if it had been a de-mand
of extradition upon the original papers that the Justice signing them
was, at the time of the signature, an active Justice of the Peace.
As a matter of fact, these warrants do not appear to charge any criminal
offense at all. The statute, chapter 62 P. L. 1927 (commonly known as
"The Bad Check Act") makes the offense hinge about the fact that the
defendant knew at the time that he made the check that he did not have
sufficient funds deposited in or credited with such bank with which to
pay the same, upon presentation. If Mr. Bullard was arrested in South
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 69
Carolina, then, upon this warrant, the courts would probably discharge
him on the grounds that the warrant did not charge a criminal offense.
Consequently, we advise that the Governor do not honor this requisition
in the form that it is presented to your office now.
A prosecuting attorney of a criminal court, having jurisdiction of a
particular offense, when that jurisdiction is county-wide, may make the
certificates ordinarily required of the solicitor of the district. Unless all
these conditions concur, he cannot.
Pardon—Fine Paid
9 May, 1929.
I am in receipt of your letter of May 8, enclosing file of correspondence
between your office and attorneys representing Horace Rutherford.
It appears from this correspondence that in July, 1928, Horace Ruther-ford
was convicted of an assault upon a female in the Superior Court of
Buncombe County, and sentenced to pay a fine of $200.00 and the costs.
The fine has been paid, and, although not so stated in the correspondence,
presumably it has reached the treasury of the county for the school fund
thereof in accordance with the law on the subject.
It is stated that the county commissioners desire to return this money
to this man upon a showing since made with respect to his possible guilt,
and that such action is recommended by Judge McElroy, who tried the case,
and Solicitor Wells, who prosecuted. It is further stated that the com-missioners
feel that they have no authority to return the money without
authorization to that end from the Governor.
The commissioners are correct in the position they take that they have
no authority to return the money which has reached the treasury of Bun-combe
County, and this is true, whether their action is or is not supported
by request or approval from the Governor. He is without authority in the
premises to authorize or approve the return of the money to this defendant.
Under Constitution, article 3, section 6, the Governor has authority to
grant reprieves, commutations and pardons after conviction. When full
pardon is granted by the Governor, it exempts the recipient from the
punishment which the law inflicts. However, such pardon would have no
effect upon a fine paid, when the money has reached the treasury of the
county or the State. So long as the money remains in the control of the
executive and the rights of third persons have not attached, a pardon
would justify a return of the money. If upon the granting of a pardon
the fine paid is still in the hands of the court or the sheriff, it can be re-turned
to the defendant so pardoned. It cannot be returned, as I have
stated, if it has been paid into the treasury. The subject is discussed in
Bynum v. Turner, 171 N. C, 86, with citation of authorities.
Member of Boards—Appointment
16 May, 1929.
Section 9 of Chapter 306, Public Laws of 1925, provided for the appoint-ment
of nine trustees for each of the educational institutions named there-
70 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
in. The section required the existing Governor to appoint five of these
within thirty days and four of them within six months after the ratifica-tion
of the act. It proceeds:
At the time of making such appointment the Governor shall
name which of the present boards are to be succeeded by his
appointees. The terms of the said trustees shall be four years
from the date of their appointment. The Governor shall fill
all vacancies."
We regard the provision requiring the Governor to name which ones of
the existing boards are to be succeeded by his appointees as temporary and
not applicable to Governor Gardner, the successor of Governor McLean,
who was in office at the time of the enactment of the law. Previous to
that law the directors of these institutions were appointed by the State
Board of Education. The appointees of the board were then in ofiice un-der
different terms. This was the reason that Governor McLean was re-quired
to name the trustee who was to be succeeded by his appointee. Un-der
the act of 1925 the nine appointees were for a definite term, which was
to expire at a definite time.
Governor Gardner, then, appoints without reference to the present in-cumbent
of the office, simply to fill the vacancy caused by the expiration
of the term.
Commutation—Sunday Labor
17 May, 1929.
On yesterday you advised me that the Governor desired to provide some
plan whereby prisoners who are engaged in such work as requires their
labor on Sunday could receive some compensation for the seven-day labor
in the way of lessening or commutation of their term.
Undoubtedly, the General Assembly could provide for such classification
and commutation of time for prisoners as would take this type of service
into consideration, as has been done on the basis of behavior with respect to
State prisoners by act with reference to the State Prison Department, C.
S. 7723-7725, and with respect to county prisoners by Chapter 178, Public
Laws of 1927. However, this has not been done, and the result can be
reached only by the exercise of the Governor's constitutional power to
commute sentences.
The power of commutation is as set out in Constitution, Article 3, Sec-tion
6. It is a power to be exercised by the Governor in each case. He
is required biennially to report to the General Assembly each case of re-prieve,
commutation or pardon granted, giving the name of the convict
and various items of information with respect to him, and the reasons for
the action taken.
You inquired as to whether the Governor could issue a general executive
letter on the subject, allowing a commutation of one day in each week to
the prisoners serving in the capacities named. As I understand the sug-gestion,
it is that the plan should be so put into effect that the executive
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 71
order would automatically operate to decrease the time or effect a com-mutation
of the sentence with respect to such prisoners, without further
action on the part of the executive.
I am of opinion that the plan could not be carried into effect in the way
suggested, but that the same result could be reached by a somewhat dif-ferent
method. The Governor could announce the rule which would govern
him on the subject with respect to such commutations during his term.
Such rule, of course, could not extend into the term of, or be obligatory
upon, his successor. As a part of the plan, a record could be kept at each
camp of these prisoners and their service and the commutation to which
each would be entitled under it, and at the appropriate time commutation
could be granted in each particular case. In view of the constitutional
provisions on the subject and the fact that this power remains in the hands
of the executive, I think it necessary that the commutation be issued in
each case and the record kept so that it would show the facts required to
be reported to the General Assembly by Article 3, Section 6, of the Con-stitution.
Governor—Advice to Solicitors
17 May, 1929.
With reference to our conversation of yesterday relating to suggested
letter to Solicitors with reference to extradition and payment of expenses
therefor, I suggest that it would be proper and competent for the Gover-nor
to advise these officers along these lines:
(1) That the affidavit upon which the warrant is based should be sworn
to before a magistrate, and that this should be before such officer who
issues the warrant. On the subject, see U. S. Compiled Statutes, 10126.
A notary public is- not a magistrate.
(2) That no one representing the prosecutor or having an interest in
the matter should be designated as the agent of the State to bring the
fugitive back.
(3) That expenses of such agent will not be paid by the State unless
the fugitive is actually brought back, and further, that when the prosecu-tion
in such cases is ended by the judgment of a court suspending the
sentence or prayer for judgment continued upon payment of the costs,
that such payment of costs should include the expenses of the agent of
the State in bringing the fugitive back.
If I can aid you further in the matter, I will be glad to do so. As stated
yesterday, I doubt the advisability of sending out a letter in the form here-with
returned.
Board of Chiropractors—Vacancy
5 June, 1929.
In December, 1928, there was a vacancy on the State Board of Chiro-practor
Examiners by reason of the death of Dr. Eugene Cox. Dr. Cox's
term, under his original appointment, would not have expired until May,
72 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
1930. On January 2, 1929, Governor McLean appointed Dr. J. A. Wood to
fill this vacancy.
The question is raised upon Governor McLean's authority to make this
appointment, under the circumstances, in the light of the provisions of
C. S. 6713. It seems that the organized Society of Chiropractors is in the
statute, article 6 of chapter 110 of the C. S., called The North Carolina
Board of Chiropractors, while the Board which the governor has authority
to appoint, under C. S. 6711, is called the State Board of Chiropractic
Examiners. The latter board is composed of three members. The ap-pointment
is so arranged, that the term of only one member of the board
expires annually. At each meeting of the Board of Chiropractors, five men
must be recommended by the board from whom the governor has to select
a member of the Chiropractic Examiners for the current year.
The governor, in this section, is given no authority to fill vacancies.
Section 6713 is as follows:
The Board of Chiropractic Examiners shall elect such
officers as they may deem necessary and in case of a vacancy,
caused by the death or in any other manner, a majority of
the Board shall have the right to fill the vacancy by the elec-tion
of some other member of the North Carolina Board of
Chiropractors.
This section is very obscure, for the following reasons. It is dealing
with the election of officers by the Board of Examiners, itself. The term
"vacancy" is used in that immediate connection. The natural construc-tion
of that term, so used, would confine it to a vacancy in the office, which
was to be filled by the Board, itself, but when it uses the expression "by
the election of some other member of the North Carolina Board of Chiro-practors",
it either means that the officers, which they are given authority
to elect should all be members of the North Carolina Board of Chiroprac-tors,
or, by some extension of its meaning, that the term "vacancy" used
in the section should apply not only to members of the Board of Examiners,
but, also, to the officers authorized by the section to be appointed by the
Board of Examiners. What is the- proper construction of the section, can
be determined only by the courts.
If Governor McLean did not have authority to appoint Dr. J. A. Wood,
but the Board has since accepted that appointment and acted upon it, it
seems that now they would have forclosed themselves from complaining.
If they have not done this, but have disregarded Governor McLean's ap-pointment
and have elected some other chiropractor to fill the vacancy
occasioned by Dr. Cox's death, then it seems that conditions are ripe to
determine what is the proper construction of this section.
Water Examination—Transfer
21 June, 1929.
You ask my opinion as to whether there is legal authority for the trans-fer
of the work relating to bacteriological water analysis from the Labora-
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 73
tory of Hygiene to the Division of Sanitary Engineering, both divisions
being under the control and management of the State Board of Health.
In my consideration of the matter I have been aided by a brief on the sub-ject
submitted by Dr. Charles O'H. Laughinghouse, Secretary of the State
Board of Health, in which brief is included history of the efforts to pro-tect
the public water supplies of the State. I have also examined the
published acts of the General Assembly of 1929, copy of which reached
me a few days ago.
The subject is covered in C. S. 7056-7063, the same being Article 2 of
Chapter 118. This article in express terms establishes a State Laboratory
of Hygiene and imposes upon it certain duties therein set out. The Lab-oratory
of Hygiene is placed under the control and management of the
State Board of Health. This gives that Board a general control of this
division in the performance of the duties specifically assigned it by the
statute. The very terms used in the statute, "control and management",
presupposes an actual existence of this State Laboratory of Hygiene. I
am unable to find in this article any authority in the State Board of
Health to transfer the duties of the Laboratory of Hygiene to another
bureau or division of that Board.
Previous to the General Assembly of 1929, specific sums were appropri-ated
for the support of the Laboratory of Hygiene as distinct from the
appropriation made to the State Board of Health. In 1929 a lump sum
was appropriated for the State Board of Health. It is suggested that the
General Assembly thereby intended to abolish the State Laboratory of
Hygiene as a distinct entity. It is further contended that the Budget
Bureau, in dealing with this question, has authorized the State Board of
Health to transfer the duties specifically imposed by statute upon the
State Laboratory of Hygiene to another division of that Board.
The inference thus sought to be drawn is not justified by the facts as
presented.
Repeals by implication are not favored by the law, and
it is the policy of the courts to avoid such construction unless
the repugnancy between a subsequent act and one of prior
date be irreconcilable.
Lumber Co. v. Welch, 197 N. C, 249.
An inference of such repeal would only arise when the intent of the
Legislature clearly appears upon the face of the more recent act, and such
act can be definitely seen to be in conflict with the continuing existence of
the previous law. The failure of the General Assembly of 1929 to make
a specific appropriation for the State Laboratory of Hygiene does not, in
itself, and by itself, import an abrogation of the functions of the Labora-tory
of Hygiene, when the appropriation for the State Board of Health
is suflScient to meet the needs of this division under the State Board of
Health for a continuation of the work. It is apparent that if the General
Assembly intended to discontinue this bacteriological water analysis, it
would have directly repealed the statute on the subject. Article 2 of Chap-ter
118, Consolidated Statutes. Clearly, it is intended that this work
shall continue. It is equally clear that it cannot, by inference, be held
74 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
that the General Assembly intended to authorize the transfer of the duties
heretofore performed by the State Laboratory of Hygiene when it has
provided sufficient funds for the continuation of the work, and did not
itself transfer the performance of these duties to some other division, or
in language sufficient for the purpose, authorize such transfer.
Nor do the functions of the Budget Bureau extend so far as to enable it
to make a ruling which in terms abrogates the specific provisions of an
act of the General Assembly. The Executive Budget Act, in dealing with
changes in organization, does so as follows, in section 3, chapter 100,
Public Laws of 1929:
It shall be the duty of the Director to recommend to the
General Assembly, at each session, such changes in the or-ganization,
management and general conduct of the various
departments, institutions and other agencies of the State,
and included within the terms of this act, as in his judgment
will promote the more efficient and economical operation and
management thereof.
It will thus be seen that the organization and management of various
departments, institutions and agencies of the State which have been es-tablished
by statutory authority, are not to be transferred by the Director
of the Budget, the Budget Bureau, or the superior authority therein, but
that the Govenor shall recommend such changes to the General Assembly
for its action. Section 23 of the Executive Budget Act confers upon the
Director of the Budget great powers over the various departments, in-stitutions
and agencies of the State, but it contains nothing which con-flicts
with the above quoted provisions from section 3.
It follows that the Director of the Budget, the Budget Bureau, and the
State Board of Health are without authority under the present statutes
to transfer the duties imposed by the General Assembly on the State
Laboratory of Hygiene to another division of that Board. Such transfer
can be made only by definite authorization from the General Assembly
itself.
Barber's Act—Interpretation
13 July, 1929.
As finally enacted, there are many obscurities in the Barber's Act of
1929, chapter 119 of the Public Laws. We have dealt with some of them
in written opinions heretofore rendered. There was at the outset a sub-stantial
difficulty arising from the fact that in section 26 of the act it was
declared to be in force and effect from and after June 30, 1929. There
was no exception to this in the body of the act. Consequently, interpret-ing
it strictly, there was no authority to do anything at all under the act
until after June 30. The appointment even of the members of the board
under such interpretation could not be made until the act became effective,
because there was no authority to appoint.
The general scope and purpose of the act, however, forced us to apply
this particular restriction only to the necessity for the qualification of
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 75
practicing barbers under the act. The General Assembly evidently in-tended
that preparation should be made before June 30 for the issuance
of proper licenses to applying barbers on or after July 1, 1929. To make
these preparations, the board must be appointed, it must organize and
function, previous to July 1 in order that proper stationary might be
provided and proper notice given to the various barbers of the State that
they must qualify under the provisions of the act after June 30, 1929.
Section 6 of the act provides for the appointment by the Governor of
three experienced barbers as members of the State Board of Barber Ex-aminers.
One member under the original appointment is to serve for
six years, one for four years, and one for two years. The Governor, so
the section declares, at his option may remove any member for good cause
shown and appoint members to fill unexpired terms.
Section 7 of the act requires the board to maintain a suitable office in
Raleigh and to adopt and use a common seal for the authentication of its
orders and records. It is required to elect its own officers, without specify-ing
what those officers shall be. Left in this way, then, we think their
authority extends to electing a chairman and treasurer (a vice-chairman,
if they choose). The secretary is provided for in section 7. He is to be
a full time secretary, is to devote his whole time to the duties of the of-fice,
and is to receive an annual salary not to exceed $3,000, his salary
and all other expenses of the board to be paid out of the revenue derived
from fees collected under the provisions of the act. This secretary is
I'equired to keep all records of the board, issue all necessary notices to
the barbers of the State, and perform such other duties, clerical and
otherwise, as may be imposed upon him by the board. He is required to
collect all the fees, etc. provided in the act. He is to keep a full itemized
and detailed report of all sums so collected and render the same to the
board, and the board, under section 8, is required to report annually to the
Governor a full statement of its receipts and expenditures and of its work
during the year. The secretary is required to execute to the State of
North Carolina a satisfactory bond in the penal sum of $10,000, condi-tioned
upon the faithful performance of the duties of his office.
There seems to be an omission in the act just here. The secretary is
made the collecting officer for the board. He is in no way, certainly not
in express terms, made a disbursing officer. He is to turn over the funds
so collected as required by law. We know of no general law which desig-nates
to whom he shall turn over these funds. One idea of the Legisla-ture
just here seems to have been that the board itself should appoint its
own treasurer, to whom these funds should be turned over, with an itemized
statement by the secretary, but it makes no provision for a bond for that
treasurer. It does make provision for a bond for the secretary. Con-sequently,
we think the better view is that the secretary should likewise
be the disbursing officer. If he is not made so directly in the act, it seems
that the power conferred upon the board in section 7 will authorize them
to make him such disbursing officer.
It is evident from this statement, then, that the Board of Barber Ex-aminers
must be constituted and function previous to July 1 in order that
adequate preparations may be made for the putting of the law in force at
76 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
that period. The whole time secretary cannot function until he is elected
and goes into office on the first day of July. Thereafter, all the routine
administrative duties of the board are imposed upon such secretary.
Section 8 declares that each member of the Board of Barber Examiners
as herein created shall receive for his services the sum of $10 per day
for each day actually spent in the performance of his duties and shall be
reimbursed for his actual necessary expenses incurred in the discharge of
his duties.
Acting upon the interpretation of the act hereinbefore set out, the mem-bers
of the board, in preparation for putting the machinery of the act
in force on July 1, incurred certain expenses and actually spent in the
performance of their duties certain days during the month of June, 1929,
for which they have rendered an account. That account allowed J. M.
Cheek, Chairman, $270 for thirty days actually spent in the performance
of duties and $250, actual necessary expenses incurred by him, making a
total of $520; J. G. Shannonhouse, $240 for twenty-four days actually spent
and $212.80, necessary traveling expenses, making $452.80; S. R. High,
$240 for twenty-four days actually spent, and $188.80, necessary travel-ing
expenses, making $428.80. The total, then, of the charges of the board
for the month of June is $1,401.60.
We have no means of checking these charges as to both the days and the
actual traveling expenses, and the statute itself does not provide any means
by which there can be this checking. Assuming, however, (which is prob-ably
a fact) that these charges are proper in this regard, we see no reason
why they are not proper and legal charges for the necessary work done by
the board in preparation for putting the act into effect on July 1. Upon
the election and qualification of the whole time secretary, however, all the
duties theretofore performed by the board are transferred to him, the
board, of course, still exercising the supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon
them in the act over him.
The only other provision of the act that at all affects the number of
times the board shall meet in the performance of its duties is section 10,
which requires them to meet not less than four times each year for the
examination of applicants for certificates of registration. It is entirely
clear that the General Assembly never intended that this board should be
in continuous session. If it had, it would have provided annual salaries
for them. Recognizing, however, that the principal duties of this board
would be as an examining board, it required them to meet not less than
four times each year for the convenience of those who wish to be examined,
to determine their fitness for the practice of barbering. Other meetings
must be necessary in the sense that some matter had arisen which required
the attention of the full board at a particular place where they were to
meet, probably in all instances at the office in Raleigh. But there must be
some substantial necessity for this meeting, arising out of the circum-stances
which demanded a convening of the board.
The office having, then, been established in Raleigh with a full time sec-retary
in charge, and the procedure for the conduct of the machinery pro-vided
by the act having been provided, we are clearly of the opinion that the
board cannot henceforth convene for any purpose except the examination of
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 77
candidates, unless there is a real or apparent necessity for their conven-ing,
arising out of circumstances which may occur hereafter.
Some question has been raised as to whether the payment of the surety
bond of the secretary should be taken fcom the fees collectd under the act
or should be paid by him individually. We think it clear that it is to be paid
from the funds collected under the act.
In comparing this statute with some of the more recent acts, such as
that providing for a State Board of Accountancy and that for State Board
of Examiners for Engineers, we find many differences that, of course, have
their weight in the interpretation of the Barber's Act. The State has no
interest in the residuum of the funds. It has in both of the other acts. The
expenditure of the funds, then, in the other acts is more immediately under
the control of the State. Under the Barber's Act the $6,000 a year ap-propriated
for the State Board of Health is to be raised under that act
and paid to the Board on the 15th day of July, October, January and April
of each year. If these payments are made at the proper time, the State's
financial interest in the project ceases. It is, however, a statute enacted
under the police power of the State and, as mentioned above, the appointees
of the Governor on this board may, at his option, be removed for good cause
and other persons substituted for the unexpired term. Besides this, the
board is required to report annually a full statement of its receipts and
expenditures and also a full statement of its work during the year, to-gether
with such recommendations as it may deem expedient. In this way
the State exercises an efficient control over the proper administration of
this act.
W. N. C. R. R.—Old Bonds
25 July, 1929.
The letter of Mr. J. A. Townsend to the Railroad Commissioner dated
July 9, 1929, is a little obscure as to the character of the bond that he is
inquiring about. We assume, however, that the first mortgage 8% bonds,
due January 1, 1890, were bonds of the Western North Carolina Railroad
issued by itself as a corporate entity before the Civil War. This being
true, the State has no financial interest in the validity of these bonds or in
the abstract question, '*Wbat became of them?"
Sometime in 1874, Henry Clews and others brought a suit in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina to
foreclose the outstanding bonds secured by mortgage upon the railroad and
this action passed to judgment and sale under an order of the court.
The General Assembly of North Carolina, in 1874-75, appointed Curtis
H. Brogden, then governor of the State, Robert F. Armfield and James
L. Robinson commissioners to purchase the railroad at the sale under the
order of the Circuit Court, limiting the amount to be paid for it at $850,-
000. The railroad was purchased for $825,000 and bonds in the name of
the Western North Carolina Railroad of the denomination of $1,000, bear-ing
interest at the rate of 7% per annum and due fifteen years from date,
were directed to be issued in payment of the purchase money. The com-missioners
were also directed to execute and deliver mortgage deeds with
78 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
power to sell to secure these bonds. The State, itself, assumed no obliga-tions
for the payment of the bonds. The interest, thereon, was to be paid
from the receipts of the railroad, if sufficient. If there was a deficit in the
receipts, then this amount was to be paid out of the general fund and such
payment was to constitute a lien upon the railroad and all its property,
second only to the first mortgage and the receipts from the railroad were
to reimburse the State Treasurer, chapter 150 PL 1874-75.
Thereafter, the State attempted to complete this railroad through the
use of State convicts. In this process, the commissioners in charge of
the completion of the railroad, had great difficulty in building it through
what was known as the "Mud Cut" this side of the city of Asheville. This
difficulty gave rise to much criticism throughout the State. There were
a series of letters published in the Raleigh papers, understood to have been
written by the Honorable Walter Clark, which created such a sensation as
caused them to be known, since, as the "Mud Cut Boom Letters."
In 1880, Honorable T. J. Jarvis, Governor, W. J. Best and a group of
associates, proposed to buy the railroad from the State. This transaction
was closed after a special session of the General Assembly approved it in
that year. Best later was unable to meet his obligation in full and, in
consequence, Mr. A. B. Andrews and other railroad men came to his re-lief
and all of his interest passed to the Richmond & Danville Railroad.
Then the creditors of the Richmond & Danville Railroad brought action in
the Federal Court to foreclose the mortgage upon that system. The West-ern
& North Carolina Railroad passed to the Southern Railway Company
at the sale of the property of the Richmond & Danville road.
It may be mentioned here, that when the money for the Western North
Carolina Railroad had been paid, it was used for current expenses, so there
was no State tax at all levied in 1884.
It is manifest from this short recital of the facts, that the rights of all
holders of mortgage secured bonds of the railroad have been foreclosed by
two sales of the railroad's property, under orders of the Federal Court.
There were no 8% bonds issued under the act of 1874-75. These bonds
were limited to 7%.
So it is clear that Mr. Townsend's bond was not one issued upon the re-organization
of the railroad after the sale of 1875.
Courts—Special
31 July, 1929.
In re: Calling Special Term for Mecklenburg County
The trial of the accused persons at Gastonia having been removed by
Judge Barnhill to Mecklenburg County, you request of this office an opinion
as to whether or not the Governor may order a special term for that county,
under existing statutes, to commence on Monday, August 26.
We think it clear that he can.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 79
The part of section 1450, permitting the Governor to call a special term,
not to interfere with any of the regular terms of the court of the district,
has been modified by chapter 100, extra session 1924, as follows:
The Governor may order a special term of court to be held
in any county or district during the holding of a regular term
of the Superior Court in such county or district, either by a
judge of the Superior Court or by any emergency judge if the
dispatch of business requires it."
All the circumstances, in the instant case, concur in sustaining the au-thority
of the Governor to call this particular term, though a regular crim-inal
court is to be held in Mecklenburg County at the time. The Governor,
in calling this special term is exercising an executive power of the gov-ernment,
consequently his action in that regard cannot be inquired of by
the courts and coordinate department of the government in this particular.
State V. Hall 142 N. C, 710.
The time fixed for this court, August 26th, is ample time to permit the
advertisement and drawing of the jui-y required by C. S. section 1452.
Orthopedic Hospital—Latta Bequest
23 August, 1929.
In re: Bequest of Mr. Edward D. Latta to the Orthopedic Hospital
After considering the letter of August 19, 1929, addressed to you by
Messrs Morgan B. Speir, J. Lee Robinson and J. C. Whitloek, Committee
of the Board of Trustees of the North Carolina Orthopedic Hospital, we
have come to the conclusion that their contention therein, as to the control
and disposition of the fund derived from the bequest of Mr. Latta is
sound.
This institution was founded in 1909. It was opened for the receipt of
patients July 1, 1921. The reason of its existence is thus stated: "To
treat, heal and teach scientifically, orphan poor and neglected crippled and
deformed children of sound mind in North Carolina."
In 1917, the State, for the first time, came to the aid of this institution
and appropriated $20,000 for the erection and furnishing of buildings, but
this $20,000 must be matched by the same sum secured from other sources.
At that time, too, the State appropriated $7,500 for each year of the en-suing
biennium for the support of the institution. The Governor was auth-orized
to appoint a Board of Trustees for the institution, chapter 199, Public
Laws 1917. The same appropriation for maintenance was continued in
1919, chapter 145 P. L. This sum was increased to $25,000 per annum in
1921, chapter 86, P. L. In that year, also, was appropriated $100,000 for
buildings and equipment, chapter 165 P. L. For maintenance, the annual
appropriation was increased to $65,000, chapter 163 P. L., while for per-manent
improvements, there was a lump sum of $25,000, chapter 162. In
1925 $6,500 was made for permanent improvements, chapter 192 P. L..
80 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
while the maintenance appropriation was increased to $70,000 each year,
chapter 275 P. L. In 1927, $175,000 was appropriated for permanent im-provements,
chapter 147 P. L., while its maintenance appropriation was
increased to $86,500 in 1927-28 and $112,500 in 1928-29. In 1929, $8,062
was appropriated for extension of sewerage plant and for transmission
line, while $121,500 per annum was appropriated for maintenance.
This recapitulation shows that the Orthopedic Hospital is distinctly a
State institution, managed by a Board of Trustees appointed by the Govern-or.
In 1927, the Board of Trustees of this institution were specifically
authorized to accept bequests of money, etc. on behalf of the institution,
chapter 188, P. L.
Mr. Edward D, Latta died some two or three years ago and, in his will
made a bequest to the Orthopedic Hospital in the following terms:
One-fourth of the income from said residuum I direct my
said Trustee to pay annually, or oftener if need be, to the
proper officials of the Orthopedic Hospital, by whatever name
known, located at or near Gastonia, N. C, to create a fund
to be known as the "Edward D. Latta Orthopedic Hospital
Fund", which said fund shall be used exclusively for the treat-ment
of poor and indigent crippled children.
After Mr. Latta's death, his will was contested by certain of the bene-ficiaries
therein. This action resulted in a compromise. Under this com-promise,
a judgment of the court was rendered, which provided that the
Orthopedic Hospital receive the corpus of the bequest to it at the end of
five years. This was coupled with a provision that, under certain condi-tions,
the trustee, under Mr. Latta's will, might have ten years in which
to reduce the assets to cash and deliver the corpus to the beneficiaries, in-cluding
the Orthopedic Hospital. In the meantime, the hospital was to
get the income in cash from such part of the principal as is reduced to
cash, from time to time. Under these provisions, the hospital has already
received, from the trustee, about $65,000. This money has been placed
on deposit in a special account in the First National Bank of Gastonia.
In the first place, this is a valid charitable trust, having proper trustee
and legitimate objects of the bounty of the donor. We think that the se-lection
by Mr, Latta of the trustee to administer this trust, did not indicate
that the benefits derived from it should inure to the people of the State of
North Carolina at large, but only to the particular class stated in the trust-to-
wit: the poor and indigent crippled children. If the fund, then, should
be used so that the annual appropriations for the maintenance of the
institution should be reduced, it would, then, be diverted to purposes other
than those intended by the donor. His evident intention was to extend the
benefits of the institution to the children described in his bequest, where,
from the limited amount available from the state appropriation these chil-dren
would not derive such benefit.
We, therefore, agree with the committee of the trustees, that this money
received for this purpose, does not come within the provisions of the
"Daily Depository Act," chapter 128, P. L. 1929. Indeed, section 6 de-clares
that the act shall not apply to any gifts or donations to any institu-
BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 81
tion, when, in the instrument, evidencing said donation of it, a contrary
disposition or handling is prescribed or required. This charitable gift,
then, is to be administered in accordance with the provisions of Mr. Latta's
will, for the benefit of the class designated therein. This could not be
done, if it was considered a bequest for the benefit of the people of the
State. It is, indeed, a private gift for the purposes stated therein. For
this and similar reasons, we also agree with the committee that this fund
is not to be administered under the direction of the director of the budget
or the Budget Bureau. It is to be administered, however, under the con-trol
of the courts, under express stated authority contained in C. S. 4033-
4035, inclusive. In other words, and in . conclusion, though the trustee
selected, in the instant case, is composed of public officials, yet the trust,
itself, is intended to be administered as though the trustee is a private
corporation or individual.
Though it is evident that Mr. Latta did not intend the fund provided by
him to displace or at all lessen the fund provided by the State for the
support of this institution, yet, from the selection of his trustee, a per-manent
governing body of the institution, itself, it is evident that he in-tended
his beneficence to supplement that of the State and to provide treat-ment
for the class, which he designates, which the State has not provided.
Of course, under such circumstances, the Board of Trustees will, no doubt,
provide a scheme for the administration of this fund, which will effectuate
the purpose of the donor.
Mr. Whitlock, of the committee, is a very capable and experienced law-yer
and, for his benefit, we refer him to
Tincher v. Arnold, 7 LRA (NS), page 471, the
cases cited therein and the note appended.
National Guard—Request of Sheriff
16 September, 1929.
You ask my opinion as to whether you have the power to send the Na-tional
Guard into a county to aid in executing the law, except upon re-quest
from the sheriff of such county.
North Carolina Constitution, article XII, section 3, is as follows:
The Governor shall be commander-in-chief, and shall have
power to call out the militia to execute the law, suppress riots
and insurrections, and to repel invasions.
Again, Constitution, article III, section 7, says that the Governor
Shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
It will be observed that these constitutional provisions contain no limi-tation
upon the right of the Governor to order out the National Guard or
make his action in the premises to depend upon request from any particular
source.
82 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
A portion of C. S. 6865 provides:
The Governor may, whenever the public service requires it
order upon special or regular duty any officer or enlisted man
of the National Guard or naval militia.
In Worth v. Commissioners, 118 N. C, 112, it is said:
And in the exercise of this discretion, unrestricted by leg-islation,
we hold that he (the Governor) had a right to ob-tain
his information from such sources as he thought reli-
. able—from the sheriff or any one else—just as a judge
would have the right to do in exercising a judicial discre-tio

at t|)e
canj\jet$itg of Bonh Carolina
Collection ot i^ottd Catoliniana
Ca + o
UNIVERSITY OF N.C. AT CHAPEL HILL
_ 00033944581
FOR USE ONLY IN
THE NORTH CAROLINA COLLECTION
BIENNIAL REPORT
OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
1928-1930
DENNIS G. BRUMMITT
ATTORNEY GENERAL
FRANK NASH
WALTER D. SILER
ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL
PT. WAVNI PTa. 00. PT. WAVNC IND,
LIST OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL SINCE THE ADOPTION
OF THE CONSTITUTION IN 1776
Terin of Office
Avery, Waightstill 1777-1779
Iredell, James 1779-1782
Moore, Alfred 1782-1790
Haywood, J. John 1791-1794
Baker, Blake 1794-1803
Seawell, Henry 1803-1808
Fitts, Oliver 1808-1810
Miller, William 1810-1810
Burton, Hutchins G 1810-1816
Drew, William 1816-1825
Taylor, James F 1825-1828
Jones, Robert H 1828-1828
Saunders, Romulus M 1828-1834
Daniel, John R. J 1834-1840
McQueen, Hugh 1840-1842
Whitaker, Spier 1842-1846
Stanly, Edward 1846-1848
Moore, Bartholomew F 1848-1851
Eaton, William 1851-1852
Ransom, Matt W 1852-1855
Batchelor, Joseph B 1855-1856
Bailey, William H 1856-1856
Jenkins, William A 1856-1862
Rogers, Sion H 1862-1868
Coleman, William M 1868-1869
Olds, Lewis P 1869-1870
Shipp, William M 1870-1872
Hargrove, Tazewell L 1872-1876
Kenan, Thomas S 1876-1884
Davidson, Theodore F 1884-1892
Osborne, Frank 1 1892-1896
Walser, Zeb V 1896-1900
Douglas, Robert D 1900-1901
Gilmer, Robert D 1901-1908
Bickett, T. W 1909-1916
Manning, James S 1917-1925
Brummitt, Dennis G 1925-
^s9
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
State of North Carolina,
Department of Attorney General
Raleigh, November 15, 1930.
To His Excellency, O. Max Gardner, Governor,
Dear Sir:—In compliance with sections 6090-6099, Consolidated Statutes
of 1919, I herewith submit the biennial report of this department for the
years 1928-29 and 1929-30.
Only the more important of the opinions of the department are included
in this report. We write an enormous number of letters each year to
county and city officials relating to the performance of their duties. In
many cases, these opinions can only be advisory, but we regard them as
being of value to such officials. This kind of work is aiding in develop-ment
of a uniform practice in the several counties and towns on the sub-jects
covered by the opinions given.
I recommend that the school law and the election law be entirely re-written
at the approaching session of the General Assembly. I make this
recommendation because clarification of these acts by revision is needed
in view of new acts and amendments to them within recent years. I will
be glad to aid appropriate committees of the General Assembly in this
work.
I apprehend that taxation will be one of the most important subjects
claiming the attention and thought of the General Assembly at its ap-proaching
session. As is usual, the Machinery and Revenue Acts will be
rewritten. I shall be glad to aid the finance committees of the Senate and
House in their work to such extent as they may desire.
In writing these general laws, it is rather important that the lan-guage
of the old statutes, especially where such language has received
favorable construction by the Court, be retained as much as possible.
Yours very truly,
. Dennis G. Brummitt,
Attorney General.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
Ensuring Democracy through Digital Access (NC-LSTA)
http://www.archive.org/details/biennialrep1928attrny1930
EXHIBIT I
CiVAL Actions Disposed of or Pending in the Courts of
North Carolina and the Federal Courts
Disposed of in Superior Courts of North Carolina
Durham Public Service Co. v. N. C. College of A. & E.
State ex rel. Doughton, Com'r v. Elliott, Executor.
National Savings & Trust Co. v. Maxwell, Commissioner of
Revenue.
Eason v. State School for the Blind and the Deaf.
Anderson Motor Co. v. Doughton.
Grinnan v. Caswell Training School.
Haines, Jones and Cadbury Co. v. State College.
J. Lawrence Sprunt v. Doughton, Commissioner.
Clifton & Wife v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
Pending in Superior Courts of North Carolina
General Motors Co. v. Doughton (4 cases).
Cullins V. State College.
H. P. Brandies, et al. v. Attorney General.
Raleigh Banking & Trust Co. v. East Carolina Teachers Col-lege.
Jas. P. Bunn, et al. v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
Louis M. Bourne v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
McFadden v. State Treasurer.
H. R. McLawhorn v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
Carolina Discount Corporation v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
Southeastern Express Co. v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
State Board of Education v. Goldsboro Lumber Co.
Chemical Construction Co. v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
Disposed of in Supreme Court of North Carolina
Great A. & P. Tea Co. v. Doughton, 196 N. C, 145.
O'Neal V. Wake County, 196 N. C, 184.
State ex rel Corporation Com. v. Railroads, 196 N. C, 190.
W. H. Yarborough, et al. v. Park Commission, 196 N. C, 284.
Town of Greenville v. State Highway Commission, 196 N. C,
226.
Garysburg Mfg. Co. v. Pender County, 196 N. C, 744.
8 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State Board of Charities v. Carroll, 196 N. C, 752.
Mavis Bottling Co. v. Doughton, 196 N. C, 791.
Industrial Commission v. State Treasurer, 197 N. C, 595.
Clark V. Maxwell, Com'r of Revenue, 197 N. C, 604.
McFadden v. State Treasurer, 198 N. C, 223.
Cullins V. State College, 198 N. C, 337.
State ex rel. Attorney General v. Snow Hill Ey. Co., 198 N. C,
381.
O'Berry, Treas. v. Mecklenburg Highway Commission, 198 N.
C, 357.
Hines v. Williams, 198 N. C, 420.
Carolina Coach Co. v. Hartness, 198 N. C, 524.
Maxwell, Com'r of Revenue, v. Hans Rees' Sons, Inc., 199 N.
C, 42.
T. J. Warren v. The State (original), 199 N. C, 211.
State V. Suncrest Lbr. Co. (Park Commission case), 199 N. C,
199.
Pending in Supreme Court of North Carolina
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Maxwell, Commissioner
(new case)
.
Railway Express Agency v. Commissioner of Revenue.
Southern Grain & Provision Co. v. Maxwell, Commissioner.
Disposed of in U. S. Supreme Court
Murphy v. Corporation Commission, 74 L. ed., 103-239.
Garysburg Mfg. Co. v. Pender County, 74 L. ed., 105.
Pending in U. S. Supreme Court
Clark V. Commissioner of Revenue.
Hans Rees' Sons, Inc. v. Maxwell, Commissioner of Revenue.
Disposed of in U. S. District Court
Southern Railway Co. v. Highway Commission.
Pending in U. S. District Court
Nat'l Surety Co. v. Catawba Const. Co. & State Prison Depart-ment.
Disposed of in Circuit Court of Appeals
State V. Southern Railway & Receiver of A. & Y. Railway Co.
Suncrest Lumber Co. v. N. C. Park Commission.
EXHIBIT II
List of Cases Argued by the Attorney General and Assist-ant
Attorney General Before the Supreme Court, Fall
Term, 1928; Spring Term, 1929; Fall Term, 1929; Spring
Term, 1930.
AUGUST TERM, 1928
1. State V. Ashe, from Haywood; abduction; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
2. State V. Carr, from Duplin; manslaughter; appeal by de-fendant
; new trial.
3. State V. Corriher, from Buncombe ; murder, second degree
;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
4. State V. Cox, from Pitt ; receiving stolen goods ; appeal by
defendant; affirmed.
5. State V. Dills, from Macon; murder, second degree; ap-peal
by defendant ; new trial.
6. State V. Earp, from Wake; forcible trespass; appeal by
defendant; affirmed.
7. State V. Foster, from Haywood ; liquor ; appeal by defend-ant;
new trial.
8. State V. Gibson, from Swain; assault with intent to kill;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
9. State V. Golden, from Forsyth; liquor; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
10. State V. Grace, from Mecklenburg ; embezzlement ; appeal
by defendant ; reversed.
11. State V. King, from Hertford; manslaughter; appeal by
defendant; affirmed.
12. State V. Lambert, from Swain; breaking and entering;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
13. State V. Lawrence, from Chatham; murder, second de-gree
; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
14. State V. Mayer, from Madison ; false pretense ; appeal by
defendant ; reversed.
15. State V. Mull, from Burke; murder, second degree; ap-peal
by defendant ; new trial.
10 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
16. State V. McKnight, from Guilford; larceny; appeal by
defendant; affirmed.
17. State V. McLeod, from Lee; murder, first degree; ap-peal
by defendant ; new trial.
18. State V. Reed, from Buncombe; larceny; appeal by de-fendant;
reversed.
19. State V. Shew, from Wilkes; larceny; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
20. State v. Smith, from Swain; slander; appeal by defend-ant;
error.
21. State V. Swinson, from Onslow; mutilating records; ap-peal
by defendant; reversed.
22. State v. Tuttle, from Stokes; liquor; appeal by defend-ant;
reversed.
23. State v. Vickers, from Durham; abandonment; appeal
by defendant; remanded.
24. State v. White, from Pasquotank; burglary, second de-gree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
25. State v. Wilson, from Pitt; receiving; appeal by defend-ant
; affirmed.
26. Si^te V. Yelverton, from Greene; abandonment; appeal
by defendant ; new trial.
Docketed and Dismissed
27. State v. Larry Newsome, from Chatham.
28. State v. John Dildy, from Lenoir.
29. State v. John Dixon, from Wake.
30. State v. Parrish and Hester, from Forsyth.
31. State V. Ed Parks, from Forsyth.
32. State v. E. E. Saunders, from Forsyth.
33. State v. Robah Thomas, from Davidson.
34. State v. Brown, from Davidson.
35. State v. Brown, from Davidson.
36. State v. James Dinkins, from Wake.
FEBRUARY TERM, 1929
37. State v. Anderson, from Wake; malfeasance; appeal by
defendant; judgment arrested.
38. State v. Barbee, from Randolph; larceny and receiving;
appeal by defendant ; venire de novo.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 11
39. State v. Beasley, from Robeson; bad check; appeal by
defendant; action dismissed.
40. State v. Craft, from Pitt; larceny; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
41. State V. Dalton, from Stokes; liquor; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
42. State v, Daniels, from Madison; liquor; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
43. State v. Debnam, from Greene; misfeasance; special
verdict; appeal by State; affirmed.
44. State v. Freeman, from Yadkin; arson; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
45. State v. Gooding, from Jones; assault upon female; ap-peal
by defendant ; affirmed.
46. State v. Grant, from Richmond; liquor; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
47. State v. Griggs, from Cherokee; assault upon female;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
48. State v. Hargett, from Greene; breaking and entering;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
49 .State v. Johnson, from Wayne; murder, second degree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
50. State v. Lee, from Duplin; murder, first degree; appeal
by defendant; new trial.
51. State V. Moore, from Mecklenburg; murder, second de-gree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
52. State V. Palmer, from Lee; liquor; appeal by defendant;
affirmed.
53. State v. Palmer, from Davidson ; involuntary man-slaughter;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
54. State v. Pugh, from Lenoir; larceny; appeal by defend-ant;
reversed.
55. State v. Ritter and Vaughan, from Richmond ; conspiracy
to kill ; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
56. State v. Rhyne, from Anson; liquor; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
57. State v. Stansberry, from Cherokee ; assault upon female
;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
58. IN RE : Veasey, from Bertie ; habeas corpus ; appeal by
State; affirmed.
12 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
59. State v. Vickers, from Durham ; abandonment ; appeal by
defendant; affirmed.
60. State v. Weston, from Brunswick; liquor; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
Docketed and Dismissed
61. IN RE : Guy Whitfield, from Edgecombe.
62. State v. Burney Godette, from Greene.
63. State v. Johnson, from Pitt.
64. State v. Redie, from Greene.
65. State v. A. A. Mills, from Greene.
66. State v. Ola Grant, from Greene.
67. State v. J. H. Ridge, from Forsyth.
68. State v. Ralph Ferguson, from Cabarrus.
69. State v. Claude Bell, from Wilkes.
AUGUST TERM, 1929
70. State v. Allen, from Durham; murder, second degree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
71. State V. Barber, from Lenoir; murder, second degree;
appeal by defendant; new trial.
72. State v. Brown, from Burke; receiving stolen goods; ap-peal
by defendant ; affirmed.
73. State v. Burleson, from Stanly; breaking and entering;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
74. State v. Cagle, from Moore; murder, second degree; ap-peal
by defendant; affirmed.
75. State v. Cornett, from Ashe; removing fence; appeal by
defendant; appeal dismissed.
76. State v. Crawford, from Wake; bad check; appeal by de-fendant;
remanded.
77. State v. Eldridge, from Surry ; manslaughter ; appeal
by defendant; new trial.
78. State v. Evans, from Richmond; murder, first degree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
79. State v. Fox, from Edgecombe ; murder, first degree ; ap-peal
by defendant ; affirmed,
80. State v. Glenn, from Mitchell; manslaughter; appeal by
defendant; new trial.
81. State V. Green, from Cumberland; A. D. W. and aband-onment
; appeal by defendant ; new trial.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 13
82. State v. Hickey, from Mitchell ; liquor ; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
83. State v. Hunt, from Davidson; liquor; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed.
84. State v. Luff, from Moore ; forgery ; appeal by defendant
;
new trial.
85. State v. Miller, from Bertie; murder, first degree; appeal
by defendant; affirmed.
86. State v. McKinnon, from Duplin; murder, first degree;
appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
87. State v. O'Neal, from Wake; liquor; appeal by defend-ant
; new trial.
88. State v. Phifer, from Mecklenburg; manslaughter; ap-peal
by defendant ; new trial.
89. State v. Poe, from Orange; false pretense; appeal by de-fendant;
reversed.
90. State v. Roberson (M.), from Durham; abortion; appeal
by defendant; new trial.
91. State V. Roberson (W.), from Durham; zoning ordi-nance
; appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
92. State v. Roberts, from Orange; abandonment; appeal by
defendant; new trial.
93. State v. Scurlock, from Randolph ; larceny and receiving
;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
94. State v. Sneed, from Durham; abandonment; appeal by
defendant ; affirmed.
95. State v. Trogdon, from Randolph; secret assault; appeal
by defendant ; new trial.
96. State v. Wade, from Hoke ; seduction ; appeal by defend-ant
; new trial.
97. State v. Wilson, from Pender; murder, first degree; ap-peal
by defendant ; affirmed.
98. State v. Wrenn, from Wilkes; conspiracy; appeal by de-fendant;
reversed.
Docketed and Dismissed
99. State v. Wiley Whitley, from Greene.
100. State V. Earl Hayes, et al., from Sampson.
101. State V. Sandy Joyner, from Lenoir.
102. State v. Goley Fulford, from Brunswick.
103. State v. Archie Fowler, et al., from Davidson.
14, BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
104. State v. Archie Fowler, from Davidson.
105. State v. Jess Meacham, from Guilford.
106. State v. Ben Wallace, et al., from Guilford.
107. State v. C. A. Straughan, from Robeson.
108. State v. Van Walters, from Robeson.
109. State V. Otis Burnette, from Clay.
FEBRUARY TERM, 1930
110. State V. Barkley, from Pasquotank; bribery; appeal by
defendant ; new trial.
111. State V. Battle, from Edgecombe; larceny; appeal by
defendant; reversed.
112. State V. Blake, from Durham; murder, first degree; ap-peal
by defendant; new trial.
113. State V. Birkman, from Cumberland; murder, second
degree; appeal by defendant; new trial.
114. State V. Corey, from Pender; false pretense; appeal by
defendant; reversed.
115. State V. Crawford, from Wake; bad check; appeal by
State, special verdict ; affirmed.
116. State V. Grievas, from Lenoir; liquor; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
117. State V. Heath, from Robeson; "blue sky law"; appeal
by State; affirmed.
118. State V. Jaynes, from Caldwell; liquor; appeal by de-fendant
; affirmed and remanded for judg.
119. State V. Jones, from Buncombe; manslaughter; appeal
by defendant; affirmed.
120. State v. Lamb, from Craven; forgery; appeal by de-fendant;
reversed.
121. State V. Lassiter, from Chowan; liquor; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
122. State v. Lockey, from Cumberland ; barber's act ; appeal
by defendant ; affirmed.
123. State v. Macon, from Warren ; murder, first degree ; ap-peal
by defendant; affirmed.
124. State v. Mitchell, from Burke ; manslaughter ; appeal by
defendant; affirmed.
125. State v. Myrick, from Halifax; forfeited bond; appeal
by defendant; reversed.
BIENNIAL EEPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL lb
126. State v. McAfee, from Lenoir (2 cases) ; liquor; appea.
by defendant; affirmed.
127. State v. McLeod, from Lee ; murder, first degree ; appea'
by defendant; affirmed.
128. State v. Parker, from Anson; murder, first degree; ap
peal by defendant; affirmed.
129. State v. Ratliff, from Anson ; breaking and entering
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
130. State v. Ritter, from Richmond ; conspiracy to murder ;
appeal by defendant ; affirmed.
131. State V. Satterfield, from Guilford; involuntary man-slaughter;
appeal by defendant; reversed.
132. State v. Sauls, from Gaston; C. C. W. ; appeal by de-fendant
; new trial.
133. State v. Sawyer, from Martin ; murder, first degree ;.
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
134. State v. Setzer, from Catawba ; breaking and entering
;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
135. State v. Simmons, from Guilford; murder, first degree;
appeal by defendant ; new trial.
136. State v. Spivey, from Lee; murder, first degree; appea'.
by defendant; affirmed.
137. State v. Wishon, from Macon; murder, second degree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
138. State v. Beal, from Mecklenburg; murder, second de-gree;
appeal by defendant; affirmed.
139. State v. Hoffman, from McDowell; riot; appeal by de-fendant;
affirmed.
140. State v. Jackson ; from Rowan ; rape ; appeal by defend-ant;
affirmed and remanded for proper judgment.
Docketed and Dismissed
141. State V. Truelove, et al., from Harnett.
142. State v. Clay Mullins, from Wake.
143. State v. Pete Stone, from Stokes.
144. State v. R. M. Smith, from Guilford.
145. State v. Sam Mills, from Guilford.
146. State v. Parker Morris, from Lee.
147. State v. James Marley, from Moore.
148. State v. Andrew Becton, from Lenoir.
149. State v. Brumfield, from Union.
150. State v. Floyd Stanley, from Craven.
16 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUMMARY OF CASES
Affirmed on defendant's appeal 57
New trial or reversed on defendant's appeal 41
Affirmed on State's appeal 4
Remanded on defendant's appeal 2
Remanded for judgment 1
Judgment arrested 1
Venire denovo 1
Error 1
Appeal dismissed 42
Total 150
CRIMINAL STATISTICS
STATEMENT A
The Following Statement Shows the Criminal Cases Disposed of Dubinq the
Fall Term, 1928 and Spring Term, 1929
Counties
1
O
a
.2
-3
e
CC4
So
V
ao
1 1
Is
ll
5(5
o
o o
Alamance 19 17 33 3 33 2 1 36
Alexander 85 17 97 5 74 6 21 1 102
Alleghany. 34 5 36 3 33 3 3 39
Anson 147 266 401 12 306 51 55 1 413
Ashe 107
88
46
1
2
45
105
87
88
3
3
3
87
74
69
20
4
10
1
11
12
1
108
Avery ._ 90
BeauJtort 91
Bertie 44
27
76
19
115
40
5
6
89
31
21
14
10
1
120
Bladen 46
Brunswick 41
325
11
199
50
468
2
56
27
470
25
49
62
Buncombe 2 3 524
Burke 111 12 121 2 103 2 17 1 123
Cabarrus 118 52 162 8 118 18 34 170
Caldwell 242 51 280 13 261 17 15 293
1
19
18
173
7
8
14
43
8
24
32
205
3
11
7
27
28
168
1 8
Carteret 27
Caswell 4
29
32
Catawba 15 4 216
Chatham 61 63 122 2 115 1 8 124
Cherokee 148
4
12
6
151
10
9 125
6
35
1
160
Chowan 3 10
Clay 38 6 43 1 24 12 8 44
Cleveland 113 36 138 11 104 14 31 149
Columbus 100 50 143 7 105 20 24 1 160
Craven* 27 87 108 6 92 13 9 1 115
Cumberland 125 105 213 17 152 26 50 2 230
Currituck 11
9
1
5
12
13 1
12
12
12
Dare 2 14
Davidson 176 29 188 17 178 16 11 205
82 21 101 2 78 7 18 103
Duplin 67 82 135 14 76 21 52 149
Durham 314 406 637 83 531 73 114 2 720
Edgecombe 46 87 125 8 95 22 16 133
Forsyth 427 355 720 62 686 76 11 9 782
Franklin 40 42 80 2 53 18 11 82
Gaston 558 100 629 29 359 96 190 13 658
Gates 61 52 108 5 75 12 26 113
Graham 53
69
51
184
2
10
23
142
27
23
2
28
1
1
53
Granville 125 194
Greene 33 36 66 3 47 16 6 69
Guilford 346 212 528 30 457 58 41 2 558
Halifax 172 257 410 19 391 15 23 429
Harnett 123 104 215 12 96 35 95 1 227
Haywood 275 12 276 11 150 44 93 287
Henderson 46 32 74 4 41 14 23 78
Hertford 24 94 112 6 96 18 4 118
Hoke. 40
8
27
13
1 68
20 1
68
17
5
4
5 68
Hyde 21
18 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATEMENT A Continued
Counties
o
O 1 6
1o
V
go
'5
-<
t. o
£ g-
O Q
o
"3 §
o o
Eh O
Iredell 42 33 74 1 56 3 16 75
Jackson* 54 3 56 1 17 7 34 58
Johnston. 47
20
41
105
31
37
42
95
72
57
77
188
6
6
12
77
44
61
144
1 7S
12
4
37
1
18
19
Lee 83
Lenoir 200
Lincoln 46 13 51 8 31 10 17 1 59
Macon 213 8 212 9 126 13 82 221
Madison 221 8 223 6 142 22 64 1 229
Martin 36 32 68 57 8 3 68
McDowell 175 47 212 10 167 10 41 4 222
Mecklenburg _ . 483 450 839 94 510 106 303 14 933
Mitchell 45
104
45
143 3
31
68
2
12
12
65 1
45
Montgomery... 42 146
Moore 30 22 48 4 38 9 5 52
Nash . 59
48
94
141
142
177
11
12
96
148
23
39
34
2
153
New Hanover.. 189
Northampton.. 49 97 139 7 114 16 16 146
Onslow 73 34 105 2 79 14 14 107
Orange 118 105 214 9 175 20 28 223
Pamlico 28 44 71 1 64 4 4 72
Pasquotank 29 38 64 3 47 4 16 67
Pender 44 43 85 2 62 16 9 87
Perquimans 12 14 25 1 15 7 4 26
Person 97 91 186 2 150 17 21 188
Pitt 69
91
217
91
16
46
152
103
254
8
4
9
124
82
159
20
6
21
16
19
82 1
160
Polk... 107
Randolph 263
Richmond 113 78 182 9 143 12 36 191
Robeson 143 80 45 256 12 156 40 64 8 268
Rockingham 134 61 189 6 151 26 18 195
Rowan 61 26 79 8 62 7 14 4 87
37
117
12
85 2
49
194 10
44
159
5
36
49
Sampson.. 9 204
Scotland 36 46 3 82 3 65 6 14 85
Stanly. . 35 16 48 3 50 1 51
Stokes 55 18 71 2 59 10 3 1 73
Surry 118
135
78
13
3
6
14
128
143
76
3
9
8
113
97
39
13
17
7
5
38
37 1
131
Swain ... 152
Transylvania . . 84
TyrreU 6 4 10 4 2 3 1 10
32
83
608
8
30
49
527
26
61
121
1,078
34
1
11
57
54
93
753
22
8
23
117
7
62
Vance .. 16
260
5
5
132
Wake 1,135
Warren 34
Washington 4 16 17 3 11 4 5 20
Watauga
Wayne
50 8 57 1 57 1 58
24 38 60 62 62
Wilkes 438
102
12
134
405
220
45
16
209
126
33
35
206
74
2
1
450
Wilson 236
Yadkin 92
76
9
5
96
78
5
3
94
38
7
12
101
Yancey 31 81
Totals 10,422 6,321 65 15,848 960 11,946 1,888 2,883 93 16,810
*2 Corporations.
20 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
O m
m 2
n H
U08JV -
83j3aa paooag (M CO CO
—XJB|3ina
^jaSSng;
"^ *"*
j^jaqug
jCmBSig
^^ '"' em ^piBssy
Ol MM Ca
i
•< <
>
c
4
«
C!
1
2
w
1
oo
m
a
3
CO
I
c
tt)
1
03 c3
"a
£
03
O
o
a)
y
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 21
^0)10 CQ -ri- Tt* »-l (M
CO»005«C>-^ COCO^Hir^lO OCOOOCOCO O^H t^ 05 -rJ^ O 05
rt I 10 ^ * * t^T-(CCCOC^ COt^OilOOO C o >i c) ^
22 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
uosay (M '"'
9aj39Q puoogg
—AJBiSjng
cn 1 m '"'
1
—j^JBlSmg
AjaSSng
*"*
j^jaqug
'
iCtu^Stg
" " C-CO T-HO5T-i00CD 001>.i-l»OCO Ci C^ C-q CO
uosiy
" .-H T-H 1-H Ol
^njyv
(N lo m (M >0 -^ T-H CO t-H t^
uoi^joqv ;
"
uoi^onpqv
^uauinopuBqv
Ttl CO pq M .1 rt tr~ " oq CO .1 (M
Counties
(
[
3
1 'c3 ^
i;:
i c
5 i
\ c
I H
5
,c
c
C
c
11
3 "a
>
£ct
c
c
> a
c
> .£
'£
1
'a
I-E-c
1 ^
acc
>
a
1
c
1
' ac>
J c
>a
C
>
E^
24 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
3njQ puB poo^
araBQ puB qsij
' " "^
asna^ojj asi^^
fC C^ (M CO ^ CD '* * •*
cq
S9XBX
adBosg
. >rt CO
(juatnaxzzaquig
" t^ (N "
SMBi not^oaia
3C1
3mqm()siQ
c^ CO m CO " "
GO
111
llj
i
^!}J8dOJioj\[ 3nisodsiQ
Cvl >o (M
asnoH v^xjapjosiQ
^ N " " -H cq
"
3ni;>iajja^unoQ
XOBJtdsnoQ
PMO
JO qijitg; SanBaouoQ
aniptmoduioQ
snod'B8j^
pgiBaotioQ SniituBQ
! (M J- o LO ir^
. CO :'° """'
.S
d
1
c
<
3 J
1 <
c
<
c
J < <
> >
><
< 1
5
1 ^
1 C
'1
i
£c
\ J £
4
"a 1
E
X.
X.
o
A
O
BIEJNNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 25
eoiOTHt^ca cOIM'-IOOi-( (Mrt-Hrt
C^ CQ e> 4)
ffi ffi ffi M
26 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
9TnvQ puB qsi^
uno3
/loBiidsnoQ
'^ o
PCTO
JO q^itg 3ui|BaonoQ
'"' "
SutpunoduioQ
suodBa^
pa^BaouoQ Sui^jjBQ |
(-iCCi-i(N OCOi—i-rfiiC '-'Tt^
i""
"""''"
3
O
1
c
c
s
"c
s: c
> c
1 C
T
1
I-
1
b
<
a
"a
1
£ct
cc
5
) a
c
1
c
tl
' C
£
c
r
C
c
1
o
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 27
iiiii INN iiiN \\\\\ Mill irii
C-l
'^
;
1 ; 1 ! 1 ! ! I 1 ! I 1
'^^
1 ^ I I I ! 1 1 ! 1
1
rH
1 1
T-H
M*
iiCOi-l»-H rHCCCDIMi itiii CICOiiCO I'.^ill i-HOOi-iICO
g
INN NNI NNi NNI NNI NNI
-*
! 1 1 1 1 IIIII IIIII 1 1 1 1 1 U5 1 1 1 IIIII 50
lllll eq.-HCO--ll lcii icoiii lOOi.rH o
111 1 ^,11, ,^,,1 _ li""* "'ll'^ ,!^q_l-H, o
1 1 1 1 rf 1 ^ -n 1 1 1 M 1 1 1 1 ca 1 1 1 ^ ^ 1 c-j 1 1 m It; r^ -M
s
lllll 111^; lllll lllll Irtlll II^hII Ci
lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll lllll
lllll rt 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (M lllll lllll 1 50 1 1 1 o
lllll lllll lllll lllll II 1 1 1 1 1 1
*"*
1
'~
Ml MM MM! MM MM! M M
»0 ir^COOi CCl-l-#0 1 r-H^H 1 IIO 1-lt^^H l^H rtHt^ l ti-H I'^CDCOt^
nder
rson t Ik
ndolph
beson.
wan
therford
jtland
inly
)kes
rry
ain
ansylvania
ireU- ion nee ike
.
irren
itauga lyne Ikes [son
ncey
"3
o
o ca o
W CO w cc cc
3 ^ E fe
'5
CO OD H H h3
cd ti cS ^ ^^^^^ ^^^
28 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
saouBuipao '^
sME'j XjB^tilW
jaiqSnBisaBj^
"^ rt IM rt IM .-H CO *"* ^ <
a
<
>
< <
>
<
n
PC fC
a
£cc
1
J
"a
C
c.
£
1<
S
c
1
i
i
J 1
o
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 29
1 1 1 1 1 »c t i t » 1 (M • 1 1 1
J
1 1 1
J I I I I till!
• iC^irp i-HiiOOi-H (MOOiOOCO CCtiC^i iO»C(M-03C0CDO O0-^. Tt< !>
C^O CO oo o i-i (M tH
irqcooooocc iococ- «-< ^rHi-HCO'—
OSfMiO"—II—I
^ fl s
o >> > 5 ^ ii o o o o o ^ ^ 03 ^ Oi O O Q Q Q
01
OSS
Q Q Eiq [X, Pl,
„ a p»
o o o o o
S cS c4 a H) o n R K n
£ ^ -a -o ^ fl> o >> a) 2 WW W A»?
30 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
|'Bdioninj\[
SJAVJ iClBJIftl^
jaimSnBisnm^i
rt M C-l 1-H 1-H (M (M cq M C-J —1 1
^noq!>ijVl ssanisng;
3niOQ 'asaaot^
"
^noqcfij^ uoissajojj;
" »—
laqn
SniAiaoay
01>-cOC50i --CO COOOr-CO 00I>-COCCb- 0'-*.00 r-ii-H(Mi-it-H »0'-ii-Hcn':0 i-HCDr-itNcq -^Ji^OSi-i
C 0} j?jnfnj
CO C<1 T-l " C-l *"* ^~*
u
UJ
UJ
^saouj
^ '^ CVI 1—1 1—
Suiujng asnojj
u
Suijjtjaiqasnojj
t-^ rH OS ;= lO c-i i:~ —
T-H -rr
cc —
I^
s/Avj q^l'Bajj
JO Sui^qm'Br)
"
.
OO Ti< CO 00 t^ 1
puB uoi:jBOinjo^
' . 1 —1 IN •^ T-l cq
.1
OO
o
a
JSo
•-5
It 'o
3
o
cc
1 1
o
p o
^1
o
Co
c
r5
C3
2
od
03
M
c
e
a
o
O
ao
03
2 o
o
o
1
Oj
(1h
id
o3
s
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 31
III!! 1 I
'^
! "^ 2
r*HllT-ll ^HCCtOi-ICO C^C0l»O'-< ' '"' •-H •* I^ r-l CO rt 1 ^ N
1 1
'"'
I 1 III ^^11 I 1'
CD
^111 1 "1 35
tOCC03-^QO C^OOi-Ht-CO -rt^iOCC-^t^O OiCOOO Ol COCOODCO-* OOOOCDi-lOi
CO ^' '-H ^ -isji Tt^
-1<
QO
^ ir^oco ostoio-^cn cDcoio^t^ iO'*-*t-ii^ co»o-*-o r-i cq
t^
'"' ^^ 05 —1
1 1 1 1 I 1 1
'"' " ^ "^
icDT-t 1-^ ctilooOCOC^ lOOiOt^iO CO^H^H lo r^ o cNi GC CO "O CO ^
'^ Ol
I 1 t^ 1 1 1-H (M CO IC ~ 1 1 M U5 •* 1 (32 "^i CO in
c5
-H 1 , ,-, Tj. I-- i?q ^ (M -H ^ C-l 1 o i 1 O CO ^ O O CO C-l 1^ CD CD *
i
1 1 -H 1 . 1 1 I tr- i-H 1 1 C^ ^^ CO ^ C^l 1 (M 0:1
s
Pender
Perquimans
Person
Pitt.-.. Polk...
Randolph Richmond
Robeson
Rockingham c
O
o
-a
co
a
a
ca
Scotland
Stanly
Stokes
c
p ^3
0)
O
1
03
3
cS
1
a cc
1
c
"3
32 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
0^ SB l«»OX
i CO
m*
S
O 05 § >« s B g
00
CO ^
-1<
i
snoanBnsosiW
CO t-H lO CO
— (M 05 M •*
ssBdsajx
C^ i-< -l (M —
'"' "^
japuBis
^~* N '"'
uotjonpag
CO e^ -< ^ (?» ^ ""^ rt rt rt cq (M C^ CO '"'
SAiBi looqog
'^ •^
itjaqqoH
•^
^oiH
83
aaotgo Sunsteag
M M " e^ -H rt '^ CO
CO
S
Ul
i
ad^a
C-1
Xinfaaj
""*
"jonpuoosij^ IBio^O
jaAt'jj Sni^oni'^sqo
iSBAiqaiH
otjqnJ Snt^oni^sqo
30U'BSm|.J
'^ " "
98a39Q puooag
—J3pinj\[
'"' -H (M (M CO * -H en CO ,-
—iapjnj\[
"
1
§
ac
<
C
X
<
>c
1
< <
4
<
> .4
1
a
i:
a
5
4
4
£c
c
a 1
i:
4
t:
£ 1
"4
i
cc
£
K
o
O
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 33
O^ tP O O WS O Tp -^ IQ r-< CO
Tt^iOCO OiOCOC^'M OOeOcO-^Oa Ol>-t^00 00COt-h»O00 r-irHOO -ffOJCOOOCO >0^H»f30iCD lOtMClOOr- t-iCOC^t^U3
Ol 1-H i-< CD ^-H i-H >0 **< (T^ .
'3 s
, J5 =
o o a Q Q Q
o :g s
ft H M £ s
s 3 T3 o 2 Q Q H fe fi,
E 3
e« Oi K4 M M
o o o o o
O 03 O > J"
3 c« 03 c4 «
O M K K M M W W A 4
34 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
83l^tmOQ oe
1 S
c<
o- oc
«<
CO iO s "i 1
CO K 5
snoau'Bnaoeijv
CO ir3 *-< NO o o 05 t~ in
ssBdsaix
' * « •^ " tH rt -H ^ CO rt
japuBis
*"* *"*
noi^onpgg
•* —1 rt -l I-H
sJA'B'j looqog
o
XjaqqoH
" «5 ^g (M * t~ i-H
%om
1 .laoigO ^ui^sisa^
" lO rt " M CO C-1 CM
s
1
OS
111
s
llj
adua
C<1 ^^ (M " " '^
^mfjaj
C^ t-t cq cq
S;;
4onpuoosip\[ {BioyjQ
a8Aiy^ Surjonnsqo
oiiqnj; Sui:}onj^sqo
" CO
aouBstn^
'"' CO CM
aajSaQ pnooag
—japjni\[
CO ^ c^ t- lO W (M « 03 T-l CO »Ji CM
—japjn]/\[
"
.S
c
3O
O 1
c
3
'c
c
"c
c
ccc
cc
t
1
"a
Pc
t-i
"3
>
a.
ec
cc
cc
>
03
d.
2
c
o
-t-=
s
s
c
5?:
e
C
C
o
S
13
03
O3
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 35
oo(Noo«30 ooicocDoo -TtHOooiot^ cciooo*-«a:> cccccoc^ OO C) O --O ^ r-lo
;o "O OT o o°
00
ZC
OSo
1
'"^ 1 « 1
to C5
CO
1 '"'
N'
]'
1 —1 —1 1 CO s
*—I !,- =o
^H 1 1 ,—1 o> ^ o**
t 1
'"' '"' ^~* 1-t i-H -^ 05
N
" o
' 1 (N (M cq 1 " -* •-<
?s
-H 1 1 00 T-H M * tX CO 1 cq i-H —1 Tti '^ —CO Tf 00 w 05 O
j^pj^^sBg
" O
CO
td «
O w
m ^
uostoj o; 'jdma^^v
ujng 0% ^dma^;v
M Cuauiuopu'Bqv
^ >o
<
>
w
0)
c
c<
-<
>
>
<
c
pq
a)
c
a) ^
ffl
c.
1r
sooc3
a
3
pq
03
"a
s
o
1
o
"a 1
o o
i
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 39
'
" r 11 !i i MM iiicMi iirt(Mi irti^i iii• (M
> > 3 > a s
„ „ 03 d
O Q Q Q
5- B-S" S 2 Q Q H 6=H (i,
^ „, ^ >
c<3 c3 frH t4 »!^
1 i
I c
I ^ o m ^
23 :s e
OOCOO OMKffiW WWWA*
40 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
uosxy '"' ^^
a8j39Q pnooag TO ^^ CO CO Co 1!II! '"'i'"''!. s
!ltii iiiciCi i-HfMii-^ ic;s S^^^?^ ^cS^§
Pm Ph fLi Ph fL, p;^ pii tf rt pij rt IB 02 02 CO 02 M H H P >^^^^ ^ ^ ^ >4 >l
1
o
Eh
42 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
SAl'E'J
SnjQ puB poo^
S/A.V'J
*"* "5 '"' CO '"'
asua^ajj Bsie^
T-H Tin ' >« CO '"' CO r-l 1
^^
S9XBX CO j
adBosg
ira T^ ^ ^^
I
^uauiaizzaquig
« ,-. CO CO ^^
smbt; uoic)08|g
•s
1
e3nic(aaj\[
3uiqjn:)SiQ
-H CO CO CO CO ^ ^ CO *
1 a
•r
paSBS^joj^ SnisodsiQ
CO " "
lU
S
111
asnojj XfjapjosiQ
" 'o CO « O •* -H * CO ^
Counties
<
a
t:
c
>•
d
a
>
< <
1
<
J
(2:
4
•r
Xa
a
5 p:
4
£c
c
(1
4
"a
1
c4
£
1
"a
E
c
1
t
i
0)
.a O
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 43
^ i-H lO CO
cs ciajj3^nno3
X0BIld8UOQ
Pino
JO q^Jig SuqBaouoQ
Xuop^
SuipunodmoQ
suodBa^l 1 (M ^H N 1 CO t~ CO ^ to II 1 .H CO »C CO c-
' " 1
1 a 1 O 1
M a
o o
^^ -3 h
jjee
Lenoir Lincoln Macon
Madison
McDowell
Mecklenburg
MitcheU-Montgomery
Nash
New
Hanover.....
Northampton
Onslow
1 1 .^
1 1 c
1 r 03
J g -s
H 03 03
3 (^ PL,
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 45
1
1 1 1 -
Mi Hi'l
*^
1 1
^^ »** 1 (M 1 ' 1 III CO t' 1 ' ' 05
-I!
-H cd cq M —
(MCO s
i eo rt rt 1 1 cq 1 1 rt 1
!!i 'M
cq 1 ^
I 1
'^
1
^^
I 1 1 " 1 1 111 1 ^ 1
'^
1
" OS
1 C-l (N ""!
sSBdsaJx 9iqP>io>i
CO N lr~ ^ c^^ O) -. to 1
§ c
s
<
a
C
>
03
X.
h
<
(3
1 c
c<
>
Bs
'i
c
m
s
Ot
3
PQ
a
03
03 O
"a
O
1
O
1
o3 o
a £
03
in
2
O
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 47
.-iT-l'rt t-itO^iOCO c^ 1-H C^ ^H ,-. i-H
C003t~-000 COC-oc^i:Da5 loosos-^eo >oocqco
,_i,-ii—« -r}< lO'-H i-iOO-^iO lOi-Hi-fCOT-H C^iOC^C^CO 1—
C^ lO CO CO OO CO i—
Oi TJH O O .,—( CO
oocoiMOsb- loeoTj^O'-' c^icqoco'X'
iC C- 1-1 ,-H CO
Y-l 1—I 00 C
"g ^ -f -S I
W W W A .^
48 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Bsaawiipao IM —
sAi'B'j vUB^nilXr
ja!jq3n'Bj8nBj\[
CO o .1 CO -H »o *"* rt 1(5 IM
3nioQ 'asnaoi'j
"^ tH
pqii
SniAiaoay;
puB AuaoJB'j
'^irSMC^OO eoi-tooooeo t^ooococa ccows-*-^
•
eaonbt'j
3ut')B0p£O'jni
c^o^«Cf^f^lH(CMOt»o-cto cortcooooi to^oo-* tot~e«e<5co cot-* (MCO IM^H^HCCCq CQCOt^f-l
3 0^ jOntni
M CO " •H 1-1
-
8
IsaDui
'"'
1
aurajng asnog
'"' '^ CO CO
i?
3ap[Bajqasnog
o c.o^ t^ CO lO —1 CM a> o o» 1-1
Ol CO *—
rt cq >-l
e/A^i q:HB8H
" "
JO aunqniBQ
*"* CO CO oq y-l Oi
puB noii^'Borajo
J
'"' >-l (M 2 "^ * (M *
XjaSJO^
U5 M oo —1 IM OOCO IN'-H.-lt-C^ r-< .-( * 1
ssBdsajx aiqioioJ
CO .. (M N e<> (M rt U5 rt
Counties
c
c
I
1 J
0.
«
*c 1
1^ 1
i
IS
1
1
Q
o
ic
o
csw
Jt
i
1
c
Q
en
c
2
o
c
1
op
C3
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 49
1 1 1 1 '^ 1 I
'"'
1 1 r!^
lra
t^-^Clt^-^ 0--'r!HC5 1 1 1 1 1 CO 1 1 1 C^ 1 1-1 I 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
^^
1 I
'^
1 1 1 " 1 1
o
1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 CO —1 1 '^
! 1 I
to
lOCOlMCO t^ccosoao CO^CO-^CO r- > • il>. ^COt^ i^hcO OO-^-**-!
CO
t^
1 1 tM 1 1 ?0 ^ w . , lIlCI .Hiti. ..,.:},,,, -Tt^ 1 1 1
C3
-* 1 1 ! lO t:~ 1 o rt 1 IffqiM .-lOO 1 1 1 rtC^ 1 1] TjllM—It^
i
rt.-l-* 1 10i-l(M !* OICO Ice 1 rtlN-H IcO COCO-H Irt^ lyrs Irt o
1 1 1 1 1 1 O OJ 1 dllCC t^llT-il .H^O^IICVI -H..(t^
CO
Pender
Person
Pitt... Polk.
Randolph
Richmond
Robeson..
Rockingham
Rowan
.
Rutherford
Sampson..
_
Scotland..
Stanly
Stokes
Surry
L
Swain
Tyrrell
Union Vance Wake
Warren
Watauga
Wayne Wilkes Wilson Yadkin..
Yancey
o
H
50 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
S9IiUnOQ
Oi SB IB'JOX
« ^ c< 1 t~ S;
t- CO ^
c^
OS
CO
oc
02
C<
CO
CO 00 cc s
sno3UBiposij\[
raOr-.co^ cq^usioTO 23"*"°°'"' (MMOooto
ssBdsaJX
C
<
C
1 c
c
<
>
c
c
1
a
soc
c
°
c3
s
c« 03
4)
2
o
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 51
(>) C.o»o
(M CO ^ Tj< ,-H CO
Tt< LO I-- 03 -rH
lO cc ^ c^ -•
C) ^ 1-H CO to
»0 ^ (M >0 O ^ ^ OO ^ Ir^
UO -^ CO --H
!-« T-t QO rti
^ CO CO ^
»—I £>. "TtH CO '-< C^ ^ i-i to ^
o o o o o
^ 3 ra CI ro
O u P G Q
3 03 cS
O K K
o3 ID
Ti /ii X! -a ^
W K M ^ v^
52 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
oj St: iB^ox
OS CO -:f< T-H U- » -H t- oi o r^ -f -r 1- t--. O^i OCO ltOo "TCT
snoauBiiaosipxr
ost^co^^ .o-.oiC'-ic !:o-jDt^-^ri oc^-^oooo
CO -—"O ,—,1—.1—(1-ht-h
ssBdsajj,
CO M —1 C-l '"'
*^^
'"*
aapnBis
M
uoponpag
t-H CO c^ " to —1 -H -* -H
SAVBT^ 100 qog
Co
39.IS8Q pnooag —japjnj\[
-* N .-1 t^ ! rj< -^ CO to (M CT N -H Tt< (M «
—japjnj^
^~* " oq
.2
§ c
o
c
o
ao
u
'o
1-^
oc
3
aO
03
C
-5
o
Q
3
c
>, ua
ao
"S
o
oo
1O
o
p.
a
o3
O
2 cO
c
O
o
a
03
a
o3
c
1
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 53
CO(MOOO-rti (MaiO-SMO OOOCnr-HCO (MOOC00005 »0o>ooo -m If} c-i -^ ao (m-hiotki^- >o>ra-j) 1 lO 1 ^ IM •! 1 1 1 1 1 r-< — 1 , 1 C-l 1 -H ^ W 1 C.) — c g
III!! I 1 ! 1 1 III!! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '^ 1 1 " 1 S
I-hIII rt-frtliM rtl, — — I— ,— , ^c^rti.
00
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1
'"'
1 1 1 1 1
iT*4i-^i ICC''' I'M'' l'''Tt^ lOO^HCO— t^'Tt*!' i~-t
lO
1 1 1 1 1 1 i-H ' 1 1 11—11 1 1 1 1 I ' 1 .M 1 1 1 1 1 1 I o
nder
rquimans
rson
tt Ik
mdolph
beson
ckingham
wan
itherford.
otland
inly
skes
rry--
ain
ansylvania
rrelL.
lion
nee ake
arren
itauga
Ison
dkin
noey
1
o
rtrtpHpnrt P^MWaJM j2^^^^ ^^^;S^
54 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATEMENT E
From
July 1, 1928
to
July 1, 1929
From
July 1, 1929
to
July 1, 1930
Number of criminal actions disposed of
Males
Females
Corporations
Totals
White
Colored
Indian
Corporations
Totals
Convictions, including submissions
Acquitted
Nolle pros ,
Otherwise disposed of
Totals
Murder—first degree
Murder—second degree
Manslaughter
Rape
Assault with intent to rape
Arsons .-.
Burglary—first degree
Burglary—second degree
Forgery
Larceny
Intoxicating liquors
Other crimes and misdemeanors
Totals
15,848
960
2
10,422
6,321
65
2
11,946
1,888
2,883
93
3
277
147
26
75
21
59
358
2,874
5,307
7,663
16,810
14 , 794
936
2
16,810
9,770
5,904
56
2
16,810
10,948
1,980
2,733
71
16,810
10
258
163
19
66
19
2
61
450
2,781
4,379
7,524
16,810
15,732
15 , 732
15,732
15 , 732
15,732
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 55
STATEMENT F
Alphabetical List of Ckimes
Name of Offense
From
July 1,1928
to
July 1,1929
From
July 1, 1929
to
July 1, 1930
Abandonment
Abduction
Abortion
Affray
Arson
Assault and battery
Assault with deadly weapon
Assault with intent to rape
Attempt to burn dwelling
Attempt to poison
Bastardy
Bigamy
Bribery
Buggery
Burglary—first degree
Bvurglary—second degree
Biu-ning other than arson
Carrying concealed weapons
Compounding felony
Concealing birth of child
Conspiracy
Counterfeiting
Cruelty to animals
Disorderly house
Disposing of mortgaged property
Disturbing meetings
Election laws
Embezzlement
Escape
Failure to list taxes
Failvire to work public road
False pretense
Fish and game laws
Food and drug laws
Forcible trespass
Forgery
Fornication and adultery
Gambling or lottery
Health laws
Housebreaking (storebreaking, etc.)
House burning .
Incest
Injury to property
Intoxicating liquors
Larcency and receiving
Libel
License, practicing profession without.
License, doing business without
Manslaughter
Military laws
Muncipal ordinances
Murder—first degree
Murder—second degree
191
23
10
155
21
634
,337
75
59
21
429
19
215
89
107
8
136
50
156
4
179
48
2
161
358
146
219
2
,070
10
20
77
,307
,874
176
17
7
181
19
683
,242
66
2
48
7
21
2
61
12
354
29
71*
152
94
7
1
173
49
131
450
130
95
7
1,381
16
10
62
4,379
2,781
6
147
12
3
277
5
7
163
14
10
258
56 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATEMENT F—Continued
Name of Offense
From
July 1, 1928
to
July 1,1929
From
July 1, 192'J
to
July 1,1930
Nuisance
Obstructing public highway-
Obstructing river
Official misconduct
Perj ury
Rape
Resisting officer
Riot
Robbery
School laws
Seduction
Slander
Trespass
Miscellaneous
Totals-
9
40
26
108
180
12
70
19
132
1,420
16,810
26
46
19
99
4
182
6
84
16
86
1,584
15,732
Addendttm to Statement F
The offenses given below are included in "Miscellaneous," but have not yet been added to printed
list of crimes. The prostitution cases were included in "disorderly house" cases for 1928-29, but for
1929-30 are included in "miscellaneous" and more specifically below:
Name of Offense
From
July 1, 1928
to
July 1,1929
From
July 1,1929
to
July 1, 1930
Non-support
*Prostitution
Reckless driving (or speeding)
-
Vagrancy
Violating automobile laws
Violating banking laws
Worthless check
48
471
68
121
Totals-
325
1,033
64
109
477
40
100
10
331
1,131
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 57
Fees Transmitted by Attorney General to State Treasurer since February Term, 1 928, Through February Term, 1 930
State V. Gerukas
State V. Jones
State V. Earp
State V. Golden
State V. Corriher
State V. J. W. Hughes
State V. Palmer
State V. Alston
State V. Lawrence
W. M. Person v. Doughton, Commissioner
State V. Whitfield
State V. Hargett
State V. Parrish and Hester
State V. Cling Ashe
State V. Roy Rhyne
State V. Ola Grant
State V. Weston
State V. Ed Moore
State V. D. K. Grant, Jr
State V. Vickers
State V. Daniels
State V. Palmer
State V. Bell
State V. Shew
State T. Craft
State V. Williams
State V. Dalton
State V. Johnson
State V. Fitzhugh Lane
State V. O'Neal
State V. Cagle
State V. Burleson, et al i
State V. Sneed
State V. John Jones
State V. Morris
State V. Fulford _
Murphy v. Corporation Commission (U. S. Sup. Ct.)
Total
12.20
10.00
13.30
13.30
16.60
10.00
14.40
10.00
26.50
4.40
10.00
1.5.50
20.00
14.40
11.10
10.00
14.40
15.50
13.30
13.30
11.10
16.60
10.00
12.20
23.30
10.00
12.20
19.90
10.00
3.30
17.70
38.80
12.20
12.20
10.00
10.00
20.00
S 517.70
OPINIONS TO THE GOVERNOR
Board of Chiropractors—Appointment op Member
6 September, 1928.
Question is raised in relation to the appointment of a chiropractor on
the State Board of Chiropractors Examiners out of the following circum-stances
:
The present Board contains a vacancy with one other member unavailable
for the object of the Board, at present. The annual meeting of the Chiro-practors
in the State failed to recommend five of their membership from
whom you should appoint one, as provided in C. S. 6711.
It is exceedingly important to the profession, as it appears that this
vacancy should be filled. The object, of course, in requiring the presentation
of five members to you is to give you some latitude of discretion in appoint-ing
the particular member. This, of course, in an emergency you can waive,
for the ultimate power of appointment is in you.
Dr. Frizelle has been unanimously recommended by the Board of Chiro-practors.
There is nothing in the statute, we think, that prevents you from
making a valid appointment of Dr. Frizelle, in the absence of five recom-mendations,
if you choose to waive that condition.
Smoky Mountain Park Act—Construction
1 October, 1928.
The whole object of the Smoky Mountain Park Act was to provide a
fund by the State of North Carolina by use of which lands could be pur-chased
by agreement or compensation paid to land owners in case of con-demnation
proceedings.
In Section No. 8 of the Act the fund derived from the sale of bonds is
called "The North Carolina Park Fund" and it is to be disbursed only for
the purposes provided in the Act.
Section No. 17 declares that "this fund shall be wholly devoted to the
acquisition of lands lying within the State of North Carolina and within
the boundary designated in the Acts."
After providing for the appointment of the Commission, that commission,
in Section No. 3, is "authorized and directed to acquire title in the name
of the State of North Carolina to the lands described therein."
In Section No. 18: "The commission, as an agency of the State of North
Carolina is vested with the power of eminent domain to acquire in the
name and in behalf of the State of North Carolina and to condemn, for
park purposes, the land described." It is acquiring title in the name of the
State of North Carolina and it condemns land, also, in the name of the
State of North Carolina.
Section No. 22 requires this land, so acquired, shall, by purchase or con-demnation,
be conveyed to the United States by and in the name of the
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 59
State of North Carolina by the Governor thereof, attested by the Secretary
of State and sealed with the great seal.
Section No. 23 requires all appearances and any suits, actions or pro-ceedings
to be in the name of the State of North Carolina.
Section No. 25 requires the commission "to institute condemnation pro-ceedings
and declare that upon payment of the award rendered in any such
proceeding the title of the land described in the petition and award shall
vest in fee simple in the State of North Carolina."
It proceeds and requires the "State of North Carolina to pay the award
within two years from this date" or be subject to a penalty.
Throughout the whole proceeding, it seems the Commission is a simple
agent of the State, acting for and in behalf of the State and, this being
true, certainly, the State of North Carolina is a proper party to the pro-ceedings.
This, notwithstanding the fact that the commission itself, de-scribing
itself as acting for and in behalf of the State of North Carolina,
might, also, have been a party.
Thus the General Assembly has provided a fund to pay the costs of the
purchase or condemnation of the area devoted to this park in the State
of North Carolina and has, in practical effect, appropriated this fund for
those purposes.
Section No. 37 of the Act was written with the intent to provide ma-chinery
by the use of which the owner of the land could be enjoined from
impairing the value of the land in the interval between the time of the is-suance
of the summons and the final award. Pending such proceedings
and to meet a condition arising during such pendency, the latter clause of
Section No. 27 was incorporated in the Act, as follows:
In the event that the petitioner shall elect not to acquire
title to the lands protected by the said restraining order, then
such land owner or land owners interested therein shall have
the right to have the damages suffered by them, assessed in
said proceedings, in the same manner and under the same
practice as now applying when injunctions are dismissed upon
the hearing or upon final judgment.
If the section had stopped here, then it would be clear that these damages,
so assessed, would have to be paid from the State of North Carolina Park
Fund. In other words, the judgment would be against the State of North
Carolina with this payment, of course, limited by the amount of the North
Carolina Park Fund. At the end of the section, however, there was
attached this proviso:
Provided, that the State of North Carolina shall be under no
obligations or liability for the payment of any such damages
so assessed.
It is apparent that Section No. 27, with this proviso, was written to meet
what is essentially an exceptional, and will be unusual, case.
The proviso itself, then, is necessarily limited to that particular case.
All that the Commission would have to do, in order to avoid any conse-quences
from- this proviso, is to be sure that they are right before they go
ahead. In other words, be sure they wanted the land before they filed the
petition and protected that land from devastation or waste, during the
proceedings.
60 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
This proviso can in no sense affect the liability of the State of North
Carolina to pay the price of the land when pui-chased or to pay the award
when it is condemned, the fund from which it is to be paid having been
already provided and apportioned by the General Assembly.
Reward—Who Entitled
15 October, 1928.
It seems that the Governor of the State, acting under C. S. 4545, offered
a reward of $250.00 to anyone who should apprehend and deliver Christo-pher
Columbo, for the murder of J. Hiram Meadows, to the person and
place named in the offer of reward.
This crime was committed in Jones County and Mr. F. M. Jenkins is the
coroner of that county. Mr. Jenkins was diligent in collecting the evidence
in the matter, taking Columbo into custody; gave him the 3rd degree and,
in consequence, he confessed. Thereupon, Columbo was delivered to the
Sheriff of the county and at the September term, 1928, of the Jones County
Superior Court, Judge R. A. Nunn presiding, Columbo was convicted and
sentenced to a term of fifteen to twenty years in the State's prison.
Upon this statement you inquire whether or not Mr. Jenkins is entitled
to the reward offered by the State.
Previous to 1913 (see C. S. 4555), no acting officer was entitled to any
reward offered for the arrest of a criminal. The General Assembly (Chap-ter
132 Public Laws of 1913) permitted such officers to receive rewards for
making arrests, provided, the arrest was not made for a crime committed
within the county of such officer. Mr. Jenkins, in the proceedings leading
to the discovery of the crime, seems to have been acting as coroner of the
County of Jones. The coroner's function, in ferreting out crimes and those
who have committed the crime are judicial. There are, then, two reasons
why, as a matter of strict legal right, Mr. Jenkins is not entitled to the re-ward
offered in this case:
(1) The arrest was made by him as an officer of Jones County for a
crime committed within that county, so the reward is forbidden by Statute.
(2) Mr. Jenkins, in the investigation of the crime and in his dealings
with the criminal, was exercising a judicial functon.
If, therefore, he had a pecunary interest in reaching a conclusion against
Columbo in this investigation, his action would have been illegal and un-constitutional.
Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S.-510.
Offices—Inconsistent Duties
15 October, 1928.
It seems that Mr. G. E. Hoover is Chief of Police in the town of Belmont.
Application has been made to the Governor, under C. S. 1468, to appoint
him also a Justice of the Peace of the township in which Belmont is lo-cated.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 61
We have heretofore orally advised against making this appointment, be-cause
the duties of the two offices are wholly inconsistent. Of course, the
constitutional provision that prohibits double office holding. Article No. 14
section 7, does not apply to Justices of the Peace and so does not apply to
this situation. There is, however, a principle of common law and this is
founded upon the soundest of policies,—that no one should hold two offices,
when the duties of those two offices do or may, in exercising the functions
of the office, conflict. It is the authority conferred by the office which affects
this and not the subsequent exercise of that authority. That, therefore, Mr.
Hoover, if appointed to the office of Justice of the Peace, does not intend to
try cases, would not at all be material in determining the wisdom of his
appointment to this position. It would be intolerable, of course, for one
to swear out a warrant before himself, execute the warrant, and try the
defendant. That would be a mixing of functions, which the common law
prohibits.
Electoral College—Canvass of Votes
30 November, 1928.
As you no doubt know, the Board of State Canvassers is required to meet
on the Tuesday following the fourth Monday after the election, which is
December 4th, (next Tuesday). They are required to canvass the votes
cast for Presidential Electors. After they have canvassed them, they shall
make an abstract of all votes cast and shall deliver the same to the Sec-retary
of State, together with the original returns of the several counties,
to be filed in his office. He shall, then, under his hand and seal of his
office, certify to the Governor the names of as many persons receiving the
highest number of votes for electors for President and Vice-President of
the United States as the State may be entitled to in the Electoral College.
Our Statute then proceeds, C. S. section 6012:
The Governor shall thereupon immediately issue his proc-lamation
and cause the same to be published in such daily
newspapers as may be published in the city of Raleigh, where-in
he shall set forth the names of the persons duly elected as
electors, and warn each of them to attend at the capitol in the
city of Raleigh at noon on the second Monday of January next
after his election, at which time the said electors shall meet,
and in case of the absence or ineligibility of any elector chosen,
or if the proper number of electors shall for any cause be
deficient, those present shall forthwith elect from the citizens
of the State so many persons as will supply the deficiency,
and the persons so chosen shall be electors to vote for the
President and Vice-President of the United States. And the
Governor shall, on or before the second Monday of January,
make out three lists of the names of the said persons so elect-ed
and appointed electors and cause the same to be delivered
to them., as directed by the act of Congress.
By an act of Congress, approved May 29, 1928, our State's statute, sec-tion
6012 above, was modified to some extent. Electors are now required
to meet and cast their ballots on the first Wednesday in January next fol-lowing
their appointment, which will be January 2, 1929.
62 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
It is made the duty of the Governor, as soon as practicable after he re-ceives
the certificate of the Secretary of State, evidencing the election of
these electors, to communicate by registered mail, under the seal of the
State, to the Secretary of State of the United States a certificate of such
ascertainment of the electors appointed and state fairly the names of such
electors and the canvass or other ascertainment, under the laws of such
State, of the number of votes given or cast for each person for whose ap-pointment
any or all votes have been given or cast.
It is, also, the duty of the Governor of the State to deliver to the electors
of such State, on or before the day on which they are required to meet
(January 2, 1929), six duplicates original of the same certificate under the
seal of the State.
Thinking that perhaps your attention had not been called to this change,
is our excuse for writing this letter.
Purchasing Agent—Surry County
4 December, 1928.
You require an opinion from this office in relation to the appointment
by you of an officer created by Chapter 141, Public Local Laws of 1925 for
Surry County, called "Purchasing Agent, Tax Supervisor and Bookkeeper",
his term under the original appointment being about to expire on the first
Monday in December, 1928. Section 11 of the act declares that this officer
shall 'be appointed by the Governor of North Carolina for a term of two
years from the first Monday in December, 1926, and until his successor is
appointed and qualifies. At the expiration of the term of office or vacancy
from any other cause in the oflRce, it is declared to be the duty of the Gov-ernor
to appoint a successor. Among other things, this act abolishes the
office of county treasurer and imposes the duties of county treasurer upon
this officer.
The question presented by you to this office is:
How far do the provisions of the county fiscal control act,
Chapter 146, Public Laws of 1927, effect this office with rela-tion
to the appointment of a successor to the present in-cumbent?
We can find nothing in the act of 1927 which at
all impairs the authority of the Governor to fill the vacancy
in this office occurring on the first Monday in December.
That act, however, does require the boards of commissioners of all the
counties of the State to appoint a county accountant or to impose the
duties of such county accountant upon any other officer of the county ex-cept
the sheriff or tax collector, or the county treasurer. The person hold-ing
this office, then, cannot under the circumstances hereinbefore detailed
act as county accountant. We deem it unnecessary to go further, how-ever,
than to declare that in the opinion of this office you have ample au-thority—
indeed, are required—to fill the vacancy occurring on the first
Monday in December, 1928.
biennial report of the attorney general 63
Boundary Line—Monuments
7 December, 1928.
In your letter of December 3rd, you state that complaint has been made
to you that private persons have been interfering with the markers, recently
set up by the Commission appointed by you and the Governor of South
Carolina to mark the boundary line between the two States. Upon this
you inquire what is your authority to deal with these offenders.
The last clause of C. S. section 7396 is in these words:
The Governor is also authorized,, whenever in his judgment
it shall be deemed necessary, to protect or establish the
boundary line between this State and any other State, to in-stitute
and prosecute in the name of the State of North Car-olina
any and all such actions, suits, or proceedings at law,
or in equity, and to direct the Attorney General or such other
person as he may designate, to conduct and prosecute such ac-tions,
suits or proceedings.
One method, which we think can be resorted to, is found in C. S. 4319,
which, so far as material, is as follows:
If any person, firm or corporation shall knowingly remove,
alter or deface any land mark in any wise whatsoever, or shall
knowingly cause such removal, alteration or defacement to be
done, such person, firm or corporation shall be guilty of a mis-demeanor.
It might be contended, with some force, that this section applied only to
private land marks and not to those fixed to establish the boundaries be-tween
States. We think, however, that the terms of the Statute are fully
broad enough to include such land marks.
Emergency Appropriation—Furniture for Mansion
18 December, 1928.
You ask my opinion as to whether an allocation out of the emergency
appropriation for the purchase of furniture for the Executive Mansion can
be made.
As I understand it, the need for this arises out of the fact that for the
past four years the Mansion has been furnished, very largely, with the
furniture belonging to Governor McLean. At the expiration of the pres-ent
administration, this furniture will be removed and there is necessity
of other furniture for the Mansion.
The Board of Public Buildings and Grounds has approved a sum not to
exceed Five Thousand ($5,000.) Dollars in the purchasing of furniture for
the Mansion.
I am of the opinion that, under these circumstances, the Governor and
Counsel of State have authority to make an allocation from the emergency
fund for this purpose.
64 biennial report of the attorney general
Febble-Minded Children—Settlement
21 December, 1928.
In Re: Alice and Elizabeth Culbrathe
We have considered carefully the letter of Mr. Paul A. Green to you in
relation to the two children alluded to above. It seems from Mr. Green's
letter that the two children were committed to the Wrentham State School
for the Feeble-minded in Massachusetts—Alice, May 20, 1917, being then
five years of age; Elizabeth, April 26, 1915, being then eight years of age.
The mother of these children died in Fayetteville about nine years ago.
The father died in the same place in December, 1924. Mr. Green further
states that at the time of his death the father had resided in Fayetteville
about ten years. Upon this Mr. Green claims that the two feeble-minded
girls are proper charges of the State of North Carolina and ask their
transfer to some institution in this State.
It is entirely clear, we think, that these two girls were committed to the
Massachusetts institution at a time at which they had a settlement in that
state. Their parents evidently had them committed to the institution before
they removed to North Carolina, else there could have been no commission
to the Massachusetts institution. The fact that the parents afterwards
moved to North Carolina and acquired a settlement here—if they did so
acquire a settlement—would not, in the opinion of this office, effect the
settlement of these children in Massachusetts in such way as to transfer
it to North Carolina.
As at present advised, then, we can see no claim that Massachusetts has
upon North Carolina to have these children transferred.
Offices—Inconsistent
14 January, 1929.
If you will look over your file and get the letter written by this office
to Mr. W. W. Leinster, Private Secretary to Governor McLean, you will
find the ruling made by us upon application to appoint a policeman a
Justice of the Peace.
We can add nothing to that opinion, except to reaffirm it and cite the
principle of the common law, as laid down in 46 C. J., page 941
:
At common law, the holding of one office does not of itself
disqualify the incumbent from holding another office at the
same time, provided, there is no inconsistency in the func-tions
of the two offices in question. But where the functions
of two offices are inconsistent, they are regarded as incom-patible.
There can be no doubt that the functions of a policeman and those of a
Justice of the Peace are wholly inconsistent, therefore, reiterating our
former opinion, we advise that the Governor's office do not appoint a city
or a town policeman a Justice of the Peace.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 65
A. & Y. R. R.
—
Litigation
4 February, 1929.
We have received your letter of February 1, enclosing the letter of Mr.
Kirkman, General Manager of the High Point, Thomasville and Denton
Railroad Company. In that letter he inquires:
Is there not some way that the State of North Carolina can
take over the A. & Y. R. R. and lease it to this company, in
order that it may be run as a competitive line?
As the General Assembly is in session at the present time, no doubt, if
it chose to do so, it could pass an Act which would be legal and constitu-tionally
valid. This, however, would require the expenditure of a least
$4,000,000.
You, no doubt, are familiar with the fact that on March 7, 1924 the
Southern Railroad Company began an action in the United States Court
for the Western district of North Carolina, to appoint receivers for the
A. & Y. Ry. Company; to sell the franchise and property of that railroad
company to pay an outstanding indebtedness of about $2,300,000. and, in
practical effect, to place the railroad in such condition that the Southern
could, itself, secure it as part of its general system, without paying prob-ably
anything near its value. This resulted in litigation on the part of
the State commencing, also, in 1924 and continuing in various forms up to
a few weeks ago. This litigation was intended, in the first instance, to
declare the deed void under which the Southern Railroad Co. and the
Atlantic Coast Line dismembered the old Cape Fear & Yadkin Valley Rail-road.
This litigation for various reasons, has been so far unsuccessful.
Indeed, on January 14, 1929, the Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond
held that the State had no such interest in the property as would permit
it to intervene in the action pending in the district court of the Western
District of North Carolina.
If this decision of the Court of Appeals is permitted to stand without
carrying it to the United State Supreme Court for review, then the South-ern
Railway Company will sell the A. & Y. under a decree of foreclosure.
At this sale, of course, any person or combination of persons desiring to
purchase that railroad and its franchise can bid. The position of the
Southern Railway Company, owning all of the stock and all the outstand-ing
bonds of the A. & Y., would be so advantageous at the bidding, that
it would be exceedingly difficult to purchase the A. & Y. without paying
an extravagant price for it. If, therefore, the High Point, Thomasville
& Denton Railroad Company wishes to purchase, it will have an oppor-tunity
to do so at that sale.
Of course, the State of North Carolina, under section 4 of article 5 of
the Constitution, could not lend the aid of its credit to the High Point, etc.
Railroad, without submitting the question to a vote of the People of this
State.
We have attempted, in this letter, to give you a short resume of the sit-uation
as it stands at the present time.
66 biennial report of the attorney general
Justice of the Peace—Revocation of Commission
25 February, 1929.
There has just been handed this office letter received by your office from
an attorney-at-law^ of Salisbury. Under Chapter 116, Public Laws of
1927, the Governor is authorized to revoke any conunission issued by him
or his predecessor appointing any person a justice of the peace, when,
upon complaint, the Governor is satisfied that the interest of the public
would best be served by the revocation of said commission. This is carried
in the N. C. Code of 1927 as a part of C. S. 1468.
Unless the ju&*tice of the peace has been appointed by the Governor or
his predecessor, there is no authority in this act for the Governor to pro-ceed
for the removal of such justice of the peace.
In this case I advise that you ascertain whether Mr. was ap-pointed
a justice of the peace by the Governor's office. If he was so ap-pointed,
I suggest that Mr. be notified to file formal complaint,
asking for the revocation of Mr. commission, if he so wishes.
Thereupon, should be notified and an investigation had. The Gov-ernor
can conduct this investigation himself, by having the parties appear
before him here, or depute some proper officer to do so. I think the man
is entitled to a hearing before his commission is revoked.
If this justice of the peace was not appointed by the Governor, but
elected by the people, appointed by the General Assembly, or by the clerk
of the superior court, the Governor would have no authority to proceed for
his removal.
If I can aid further in the matter, I will be glad to do so.
National Banks—Taxation
7 March, 1929.
We have considered, carefully, the letter of Governor Christiansen of
Minnesota and the accompanying resolutions.
The method of taxing National Banks, as adopted in North Carolina and
which has been in force in this State for many years has been sustained,
if not directly, certainly in practical effect, in First National Bank of
Aberdeeyi v. Chehalis County, 165 U. S., 440.
In 1923, Congress, by an act approved March 4, 1923, enacted a substi-tute
section for the old section 5219 in the revised statutes of the United
States. It has been understood that this amendment avoided the difficulty
created by the decision of the United States Supreme Court, in The Mer-chants
National Bank of Richmond v. The City of Richmond, 256 U. S.
685. It was held in that case that the old section 5219 providing that State
taxation of shares of National Bank stock should not be at a greater rate
than is assessed on other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citi-zens
of the State, Is not limited to protecting National Bank shareholders
from higher taxation than is assessed against shares in State banks, but
the expression "moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens" in-
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 67
eludes investments in securities that would be money at interest and other
evidence of indebtedness, such as normally entered into banking.
The Constitution of Virginia allowed classification of cei'tain property
for the purpose of taxation. In pursuance of this authority, in the city of
Richmond, $1.75 was levied on each one hundred ($100.) dollars invested
in bank stock, whether National or State, while the rate was only $.95 on
each one hundred ($100.) dollars valuation of intangible property, in-cluding
bonds, notes and other evidences of indebtedness. Though the lat-ter
class was taxed in the hands of individual citizens, the court held this
such discrimination as would render invalid the tax levied by the city of
Richmond upon the shares of stock in National Banks, though the same
tax was levied upon the shares of stock in state banks. Thus the court,
in interpreting the act, brought such tax upon national banks in conflict
with the tax upon investments made by individual citizens.
As hereinbefore said, it was thought that the act of March 4, 1923, was
intended to meet the condition arising out of this decision of the United
States Supreme Court, but, in 1st National Bank v. The City of Hartford,
273 U. S., 548, the court held that the amendment did no more than put
into express words that, which according to the repeated decisions of this
court, was implied before.
By its terms, the amendment excluded from moneyed capital only those
personal investments which are in competition with the business of Na-tional
Banks. Consequently, it was held that the act of Wisconsin, ex-empting
from taxation all moneys or debts due or to come due and all
stocks and bonds as discriminatory against National Banks, when evidence
established that moneyed capital within such exemption was used in sub-stantial
competition with business of the National Banks and the shares
of stock in said National Banks were taxed. See, also Georgetown Na-tional
Bank v. McFarland 273 U. S., 568.
It is said that there are thirty-one States in the Union, which permit
classification of what we know as solvent credits into a class by themselves,
for the purpose of taxation. Some of those States exempts this class of
property from taxation at all—notably Wisconsin and New York. As a
result of these decisions of the United States Supreme Court, two bills
were introduced into the House of Representatives, at the recent session of
Congress. These bills, if they had been enacted into a law would permit
the taxation of National Bank shai-es at no greater rate than that assessed
within the taxing district of the hanks location upon real estate used for
mercantile or like business purposes, nor higher than is assessed upon
shares of corporations engaged in the business of receiving deposits sub-ject
to check or the capital of individuals likewise employed in that busi-ness.
Naturally, all these States which have classified intangible or sol-vent
credits for a lower rate of taxation, or which have exempted them
entirely, are very much interested in the enactment of these bills into a
statute. Though we are not informed in regard to it, we suppose that
Minnesota is one of this class of States.
As conditions are in North Carolina now, we are not particularly in-terested
in what shall be done by Congress, in this regard. Our statutes
in no particular discriminate against National Banks. Moneyed capital
68 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
in the hands of individual holders, where used in such way as to come in
competition with National Banks, is taxed at identically the same rate as
the shares of stock in National Banks ai*e taxed. In other words, this
class of property is in no particular favored at the expense of National
Banks, either in the rate of taxation or the assessment of its value.
There is, however, a determined effort in the State of North Carolina to
adopt a constitutional amendment which will permit the classification of
intangibles, particularly for taxation. If this should be adopted by the
people and the Legislature should act under the authority thus conferred
upon it, then North Carolina would be in the same situation with reference
to National Banks as are the other States, which are now complaining of
the Federal Statute permitting the taxation of those institutions. It is,
therefore, not vital that we should act now, in conjunction with these other
States, but it may become so later. Indeed, if the bills to which we have
referred, formally pending before Congress, should be re-introduced into
the new Congress and become a law, the taxation of National Banks would
be also simplified for us.
We are writing thus fully, so that you may understand the exact position
which the State occupies in relation to the taxation of these Federal in-stitutions,
so that you can determine whether or not you will bring the
enclosed resolutions to the attention of the General Assembly.
Extradition—Solicitor
13 March, 1929.
In re: Extradition of J. F. Bullard
We have considered the extradition papers in the above matter and,
also, the letter of Honorable Woodus Kellum, which accompanies them.
Mr, Kellum is, evidently, laboring under a misapprehension. The solici-tors
of the respective districts are never required to make an affidavit. If
Mr. Kellum will examine Appendix VI, page 654 of the third volume of
C. S., he will see the kind of paper that he is required to certify.
The papers sent you do not comply with the rules and regulations found
at the place above referred to, nor with the Federal Statutes, which reg-ulate
such extradition. In the first place, they do not contain the pro-ceedings
and judgment of the Recorders Court. They do contain what
appears to be a certified copy of the original warrant of the Justice of the
Peace upon which the defendant was arrested. The clerk of the Superior
Court should have certified, under his hand and, seal, if it had been a de-mand
of extradition upon the original papers that the Justice signing them
was, at the time of the signature, an active Justice of the Peace.
As a matter of fact, these warrants do not appear to charge any criminal
offense at all. The statute, chapter 62 P. L. 1927 (commonly known as
"The Bad Check Act") makes the offense hinge about the fact that the
defendant knew at the time that he made the check that he did not have
sufficient funds deposited in or credited with such bank with which to
pay the same, upon presentation. If Mr. Bullard was arrested in South
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 69
Carolina, then, upon this warrant, the courts would probably discharge
him on the grounds that the warrant did not charge a criminal offense.
Consequently, we advise that the Governor do not honor this requisition
in the form that it is presented to your office now.
A prosecuting attorney of a criminal court, having jurisdiction of a
particular offense, when that jurisdiction is county-wide, may make the
certificates ordinarily required of the solicitor of the district. Unless all
these conditions concur, he cannot.
Pardon—Fine Paid
9 May, 1929.
I am in receipt of your letter of May 8, enclosing file of correspondence
between your office and attorneys representing Horace Rutherford.
It appears from this correspondence that in July, 1928, Horace Ruther-ford
was convicted of an assault upon a female in the Superior Court of
Buncombe County, and sentenced to pay a fine of $200.00 and the costs.
The fine has been paid, and, although not so stated in the correspondence,
presumably it has reached the treasury of the county for the school fund
thereof in accordance with the law on the subject.
It is stated that the county commissioners desire to return this money
to this man upon a showing since made with respect to his possible guilt,
and that such action is recommended by Judge McElroy, who tried the case,
and Solicitor Wells, who prosecuted. It is further stated that the com-missioners
feel that they have no authority to return the money without
authorization to that end from the Governor.
The commissioners are correct in the position they take that they have
no authority to return the money which has reached the treasury of Bun-combe
County, and this is true, whether their action is or is not supported
by request or approval from the Governor. He is without authority in the
premises to authorize or approve the return of the money to this defendant.
Under Constitution, article 3, section 6, the Governor has authority to
grant reprieves, commutations and pardons after conviction. When full
pardon is granted by the Governor, it exempts the recipient from the
punishment which the law inflicts. However, such pardon would have no
effect upon a fine paid, when the money has reached the treasury of the
county or the State. So long as the money remains in the control of the
executive and the rights of third persons have not attached, a pardon
would justify a return of the money. If upon the granting of a pardon
the fine paid is still in the hands of the court or the sheriff, it can be re-turned
to the defendant so pardoned. It cannot be returned, as I have
stated, if it has been paid into the treasury. The subject is discussed in
Bynum v. Turner, 171 N. C, 86, with citation of authorities.
Member of Boards—Appointment
16 May, 1929.
Section 9 of Chapter 306, Public Laws of 1925, provided for the appoint-ment
of nine trustees for each of the educational institutions named there-
70 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
in. The section required the existing Governor to appoint five of these
within thirty days and four of them within six months after the ratifica-tion
of the act. It proceeds:
At the time of making such appointment the Governor shall
name which of the present boards are to be succeeded by his
appointees. The terms of the said trustees shall be four years
from the date of their appointment. The Governor shall fill
all vacancies."
We regard the provision requiring the Governor to name which ones of
the existing boards are to be succeeded by his appointees as temporary and
not applicable to Governor Gardner, the successor of Governor McLean,
who was in office at the time of the enactment of the law. Previous to
that law the directors of these institutions were appointed by the State
Board of Education. The appointees of the board were then in ofiice un-der
different terms. This was the reason that Governor McLean was re-quired
to name the trustee who was to be succeeded by his appointee. Un-der
the act of 1925 the nine appointees were for a definite term, which was
to expire at a definite time.
Governor Gardner, then, appoints without reference to the present in-cumbent
of the office, simply to fill the vacancy caused by the expiration
of the term.
Commutation—Sunday Labor
17 May, 1929.
On yesterday you advised me that the Governor desired to provide some
plan whereby prisoners who are engaged in such work as requires their
labor on Sunday could receive some compensation for the seven-day labor
in the way of lessening or commutation of their term.
Undoubtedly, the General Assembly could provide for such classification
and commutation of time for prisoners as would take this type of service
into consideration, as has been done on the basis of behavior with respect to
State prisoners by act with reference to the State Prison Department, C.
S. 7723-7725, and with respect to county prisoners by Chapter 178, Public
Laws of 1927. However, this has not been done, and the result can be
reached only by the exercise of the Governor's constitutional power to
commute sentences.
The power of commutation is as set out in Constitution, Article 3, Sec-tion
6. It is a power to be exercised by the Governor in each case. He
is required biennially to report to the General Assembly each case of re-prieve,
commutation or pardon granted, giving the name of the convict
and various items of information with respect to him, and the reasons for
the action taken.
You inquired as to whether the Governor could issue a general executive
letter on the subject, allowing a commutation of one day in each week to
the prisoners serving in the capacities named. As I understand the sug-gestion,
it is that the plan should be so put into effect that the executive
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 71
order would automatically operate to decrease the time or effect a com-mutation
of the sentence with respect to such prisoners, without further
action on the part of the executive.
I am of opinion that the plan could not be carried into effect in the way
suggested, but that the same result could be reached by a somewhat dif-ferent
method. The Governor could announce the rule which would govern
him on the subject with respect to such commutations during his term.
Such rule, of course, could not extend into the term of, or be obligatory
upon, his successor. As a part of the plan, a record could be kept at each
camp of these prisoners and their service and the commutation to which
each would be entitled under it, and at the appropriate time commutation
could be granted in each particular case. In view of the constitutional
provisions on the subject and the fact that this power remains in the hands
of the executive, I think it necessary that the commutation be issued in
each case and the record kept so that it would show the facts required to
be reported to the General Assembly by Article 3, Section 6, of the Con-stitution.
Governor—Advice to Solicitors
17 May, 1929.
With reference to our conversation of yesterday relating to suggested
letter to Solicitors with reference to extradition and payment of expenses
therefor, I suggest that it would be proper and competent for the Gover-nor
to advise these officers along these lines:
(1) That the affidavit upon which the warrant is based should be sworn
to before a magistrate, and that this should be before such officer who
issues the warrant. On the subject, see U. S. Compiled Statutes, 10126.
A notary public is- not a magistrate.
(2) That no one representing the prosecutor or having an interest in
the matter should be designated as the agent of the State to bring the
fugitive back.
(3) That expenses of such agent will not be paid by the State unless
the fugitive is actually brought back, and further, that when the prosecu-tion
in such cases is ended by the judgment of a court suspending the
sentence or prayer for judgment continued upon payment of the costs,
that such payment of costs should include the expenses of the agent of
the State in bringing the fugitive back.
If I can aid you further in the matter, I will be glad to do so. As stated
yesterday, I doubt the advisability of sending out a letter in the form here-with
returned.
Board of Chiropractors—Vacancy
5 June, 1929.
In December, 1928, there was a vacancy on the State Board of Chiro-practor
Examiners by reason of the death of Dr. Eugene Cox. Dr. Cox's
term, under his original appointment, would not have expired until May,
72 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
1930. On January 2, 1929, Governor McLean appointed Dr. J. A. Wood to
fill this vacancy.
The question is raised upon Governor McLean's authority to make this
appointment, under the circumstances, in the light of the provisions of
C. S. 6713. It seems that the organized Society of Chiropractors is in the
statute, article 6 of chapter 110 of the C. S., called The North Carolina
Board of Chiropractors, while the Board which the governor has authority
to appoint, under C. S. 6711, is called the State Board of Chiropractic
Examiners. The latter board is composed of three members. The ap-pointment
is so arranged, that the term of only one member of the board
expires annually. At each meeting of the Board of Chiropractors, five men
must be recommended by the board from whom the governor has to select
a member of the Chiropractic Examiners for the current year.
The governor, in this section, is given no authority to fill vacancies.
Section 6713 is as follows:
The Board of Chiropractic Examiners shall elect such
officers as they may deem necessary and in case of a vacancy,
caused by the death or in any other manner, a majority of
the Board shall have the right to fill the vacancy by the elec-tion
of some other member of the North Carolina Board of
Chiropractors.
This section is very obscure, for the following reasons. It is dealing
with the election of officers by the Board of Examiners, itself. The term
"vacancy" is used in that immediate connection. The natural construc-tion
of that term, so used, would confine it to a vacancy in the office, which
was to be filled by the Board, itself, but when it uses the expression "by
the election of some other member of the North Carolina Board of Chiro-practors",
it either means that the officers, which they are given authority
to elect should all be members of the North Carolina Board of Chiroprac-tors,
or, by some extension of its meaning, that the term "vacancy" used
in the section should apply not only to members of the Board of Examiners,
but, also, to the officers authorized by the section to be appointed by the
Board of Examiners. What is the- proper construction of the section, can
be determined only by the courts.
If Governor McLean did not have authority to appoint Dr. J. A. Wood,
but the Board has since accepted that appointment and acted upon it, it
seems that now they would have forclosed themselves from complaining.
If they have not done this, but have disregarded Governor McLean's ap-pointment
and have elected some other chiropractor to fill the vacancy
occasioned by Dr. Cox's death, then it seems that conditions are ripe to
determine what is the proper construction of this section.
Water Examination—Transfer
21 June, 1929.
You ask my opinion as to whether there is legal authority for the trans-fer
of the work relating to bacteriological water analysis from the Labora-
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 73
tory of Hygiene to the Division of Sanitary Engineering, both divisions
being under the control and management of the State Board of Health.
In my consideration of the matter I have been aided by a brief on the sub-ject
submitted by Dr. Charles O'H. Laughinghouse, Secretary of the State
Board of Health, in which brief is included history of the efforts to pro-tect
the public water supplies of the State. I have also examined the
published acts of the General Assembly of 1929, copy of which reached
me a few days ago.
The subject is covered in C. S. 7056-7063, the same being Article 2 of
Chapter 118. This article in express terms establishes a State Laboratory
of Hygiene and imposes upon it certain duties therein set out. The Lab-oratory
of Hygiene is placed under the control and management of the
State Board of Health. This gives that Board a general control of this
division in the performance of the duties specifically assigned it by the
statute. The very terms used in the statute, "control and management",
presupposes an actual existence of this State Laboratory of Hygiene. I
am unable to find in this article any authority in the State Board of
Health to transfer the duties of the Laboratory of Hygiene to another
bureau or division of that Board.
Previous to the General Assembly of 1929, specific sums were appropri-ated
for the support of the Laboratory of Hygiene as distinct from the
appropriation made to the State Board of Health. In 1929 a lump sum
was appropriated for the State Board of Health. It is suggested that the
General Assembly thereby intended to abolish the State Laboratory of
Hygiene as a distinct entity. It is further contended that the Budget
Bureau, in dealing with this question, has authorized the State Board of
Health to transfer the duties specifically imposed by statute upon the
State Laboratory of Hygiene to another division of that Board.
The inference thus sought to be drawn is not justified by the facts as
presented.
Repeals by implication are not favored by the law, and
it is the policy of the courts to avoid such construction unless
the repugnancy between a subsequent act and one of prior
date be irreconcilable.
Lumber Co. v. Welch, 197 N. C, 249.
An inference of such repeal would only arise when the intent of the
Legislature clearly appears upon the face of the more recent act, and such
act can be definitely seen to be in conflict with the continuing existence of
the previous law. The failure of the General Assembly of 1929 to make
a specific appropriation for the State Laboratory of Hygiene does not, in
itself, and by itself, import an abrogation of the functions of the Labora-tory
of Hygiene, when the appropriation for the State Board of Health
is suflScient to meet the needs of this division under the State Board of
Health for a continuation of the work. It is apparent that if the General
Assembly intended to discontinue this bacteriological water analysis, it
would have directly repealed the statute on the subject. Article 2 of Chap-ter
118, Consolidated Statutes. Clearly, it is intended that this work
shall continue. It is equally clear that it cannot, by inference, be held
74 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
that the General Assembly intended to authorize the transfer of the duties
heretofore performed by the State Laboratory of Hygiene when it has
provided sufficient funds for the continuation of the work, and did not
itself transfer the performance of these duties to some other division, or
in language sufficient for the purpose, authorize such transfer.
Nor do the functions of the Budget Bureau extend so far as to enable it
to make a ruling which in terms abrogates the specific provisions of an
act of the General Assembly. The Executive Budget Act, in dealing with
changes in organization, does so as follows, in section 3, chapter 100,
Public Laws of 1929:
It shall be the duty of the Director to recommend to the
General Assembly, at each session, such changes in the or-ganization,
management and general conduct of the various
departments, institutions and other agencies of the State,
and included within the terms of this act, as in his judgment
will promote the more efficient and economical operation and
management thereof.
It will thus be seen that the organization and management of various
departments, institutions and agencies of the State which have been es-tablished
by statutory authority, are not to be transferred by the Director
of the Budget, the Budget Bureau, or the superior authority therein, but
that the Govenor shall recommend such changes to the General Assembly
for its action. Section 23 of the Executive Budget Act confers upon the
Director of the Budget great powers over the various departments, in-stitutions
and agencies of the State, but it contains nothing which con-flicts
with the above quoted provisions from section 3.
It follows that the Director of the Budget, the Budget Bureau, and the
State Board of Health are without authority under the present statutes
to transfer the duties imposed by the General Assembly on the State
Laboratory of Hygiene to another division of that Board. Such transfer
can be made only by definite authorization from the General Assembly
itself.
Barber's Act—Interpretation
13 July, 1929.
As finally enacted, there are many obscurities in the Barber's Act of
1929, chapter 119 of the Public Laws. We have dealt with some of them
in written opinions heretofore rendered. There was at the outset a sub-stantial
difficulty arising from the fact that in section 26 of the act it was
declared to be in force and effect from and after June 30, 1929. There
was no exception to this in the body of the act. Consequently, interpret-ing
it strictly, there was no authority to do anything at all under the act
until after June 30. The appointment even of the members of the board
under such interpretation could not be made until the act became effective,
because there was no authority to appoint.
The general scope and purpose of the act, however, forced us to apply
this particular restriction only to the necessity for the qualification of
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 75
practicing barbers under the act. The General Assembly evidently in-tended
that preparation should be made before June 30 for the issuance
of proper licenses to applying barbers on or after July 1, 1929. To make
these preparations, the board must be appointed, it must organize and
function, previous to July 1 in order that proper stationary might be
provided and proper notice given to the various barbers of the State that
they must qualify under the provisions of the act after June 30, 1929.
Section 6 of the act provides for the appointment by the Governor of
three experienced barbers as members of the State Board of Barber Ex-aminers.
One member under the original appointment is to serve for
six years, one for four years, and one for two years. The Governor, so
the section declares, at his option may remove any member for good cause
shown and appoint members to fill unexpired terms.
Section 7 of the act requires the board to maintain a suitable office in
Raleigh and to adopt and use a common seal for the authentication of its
orders and records. It is required to elect its own officers, without specify-ing
what those officers shall be. Left in this way, then, we think their
authority extends to electing a chairman and treasurer (a vice-chairman,
if they choose). The secretary is provided for in section 7. He is to be
a full time secretary, is to devote his whole time to the duties of the of-fice,
and is to receive an annual salary not to exceed $3,000, his salary
and all other expenses of the board to be paid out of the revenue derived
from fees collected under the provisions of the act. This secretary is
I'equired to keep all records of the board, issue all necessary notices to
the barbers of the State, and perform such other duties, clerical and
otherwise, as may be imposed upon him by the board. He is required to
collect all the fees, etc. provided in the act. He is to keep a full itemized
and detailed report of all sums so collected and render the same to the
board, and the board, under section 8, is required to report annually to the
Governor a full statement of its receipts and expenditures and of its work
during the year. The secretary is required to execute to the State of
North Carolina a satisfactory bond in the penal sum of $10,000, condi-tioned
upon the faithful performance of the duties of his office.
There seems to be an omission in the act just here. The secretary is
made the collecting officer for the board. He is in no way, certainly not
in express terms, made a disbursing officer. He is to turn over the funds
so collected as required by law. We know of no general law which desig-nates
to whom he shall turn over these funds. One idea of the Legisla-ture
just here seems to have been that the board itself should appoint its
own treasurer, to whom these funds should be turned over, with an itemized
statement by the secretary, but it makes no provision for a bond for that
treasurer. It does make provision for a bond for the secretary. Con-sequently,
we think the better view is that the secretary should likewise
be the disbursing officer. If he is not made so directly in the act, it seems
that the power conferred upon the board in section 7 will authorize them
to make him such disbursing officer.
It is evident from this statement, then, that the Board of Barber Ex-aminers
must be constituted and function previous to July 1 in order that
adequate preparations may be made for the putting of the law in force at
76 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
that period. The whole time secretary cannot function until he is elected
and goes into office on the first day of July. Thereafter, all the routine
administrative duties of the board are imposed upon such secretary.
Section 8 declares that each member of the Board of Barber Examiners
as herein created shall receive for his services the sum of $10 per day
for each day actually spent in the performance of his duties and shall be
reimbursed for his actual necessary expenses incurred in the discharge of
his duties.
Acting upon the interpretation of the act hereinbefore set out, the mem-bers
of the board, in preparation for putting the machinery of the act
in force on July 1, incurred certain expenses and actually spent in the
performance of their duties certain days during the month of June, 1929,
for which they have rendered an account. That account allowed J. M.
Cheek, Chairman, $270 for thirty days actually spent in the performance
of duties and $250, actual necessary expenses incurred by him, making a
total of $520; J. G. Shannonhouse, $240 for twenty-four days actually spent
and $212.80, necessary traveling expenses, making $452.80; S. R. High,
$240 for twenty-four days actually spent, and $188.80, necessary travel-ing
expenses, making $428.80. The total, then, of the charges of the board
for the month of June is $1,401.60.
We have no means of checking these charges as to both the days and the
actual traveling expenses, and the statute itself does not provide any means
by which there can be this checking. Assuming, however, (which is prob-ably
a fact) that these charges are proper in this regard, we see no reason
why they are not proper and legal charges for the necessary work done by
the board in preparation for putting the act into effect on July 1. Upon
the election and qualification of the whole time secretary, however, all the
duties theretofore performed by the board are transferred to him, the
board, of course, still exercising the supervisory jurisdiction conferred upon
them in the act over him.
The only other provision of the act that at all affects the number of
times the board shall meet in the performance of its duties is section 10,
which requires them to meet not less than four times each year for the
examination of applicants for certificates of registration. It is entirely
clear that the General Assembly never intended that this board should be
in continuous session. If it had, it would have provided annual salaries
for them. Recognizing, however, that the principal duties of this board
would be as an examining board, it required them to meet not less than
four times each year for the convenience of those who wish to be examined,
to determine their fitness for the practice of barbering. Other meetings
must be necessary in the sense that some matter had arisen which required
the attention of the full board at a particular place where they were to
meet, probably in all instances at the office in Raleigh. But there must be
some substantial necessity for this meeting, arising out of the circum-stances
which demanded a convening of the board.
The office having, then, been established in Raleigh with a full time sec-retary
in charge, and the procedure for the conduct of the machinery pro-vided
by the act having been provided, we are clearly of the opinion that the
board cannot henceforth convene for any purpose except the examination of
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 77
candidates, unless there is a real or apparent necessity for their conven-ing,
arising out of circumstances which may occur hereafter.
Some question has been raised as to whether the payment of the surety
bond of the secretary should be taken fcom the fees collectd under the act
or should be paid by him individually. We think it clear that it is to be paid
from the funds collected under the act.
In comparing this statute with some of the more recent acts, such as
that providing for a State Board of Accountancy and that for State Board
of Examiners for Engineers, we find many differences that, of course, have
their weight in the interpretation of the Barber's Act. The State has no
interest in the residuum of the funds. It has in both of the other acts. The
expenditure of the funds, then, in the other acts is more immediately under
the control of the State. Under the Barber's Act the $6,000 a year ap-propriated
for the State Board of Health is to be raised under that act
and paid to the Board on the 15th day of July, October, January and April
of each year. If these payments are made at the proper time, the State's
financial interest in the project ceases. It is, however, a statute enacted
under the police power of the State and, as mentioned above, the appointees
of the Governor on this board may, at his option, be removed for good cause
and other persons substituted for the unexpired term. Besides this, the
board is required to report annually a full statement of its receipts and
expenditures and also a full statement of its work during the year, to-gether
with such recommendations as it may deem expedient. In this way
the State exercises an efficient control over the proper administration of
this act.
W. N. C. R. R.—Old Bonds
25 July, 1929.
The letter of Mr. J. A. Townsend to the Railroad Commissioner dated
July 9, 1929, is a little obscure as to the character of the bond that he is
inquiring about. We assume, however, that the first mortgage 8% bonds,
due January 1, 1890, were bonds of the Western North Carolina Railroad
issued by itself as a corporate entity before the Civil War. This being
true, the State has no financial interest in the validity of these bonds or in
the abstract question, '*Wbat became of them?"
Sometime in 1874, Henry Clews and others brought a suit in the Circuit
Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina to
foreclose the outstanding bonds secured by mortgage upon the railroad and
this action passed to judgment and sale under an order of the court.
The General Assembly of North Carolina, in 1874-75, appointed Curtis
H. Brogden, then governor of the State, Robert F. Armfield and James
L. Robinson commissioners to purchase the railroad at the sale under the
order of the Circuit Court, limiting the amount to be paid for it at $850,-
000. The railroad was purchased for $825,000 and bonds in the name of
the Western North Carolina Railroad of the denomination of $1,000, bear-ing
interest at the rate of 7% per annum and due fifteen years from date,
were directed to be issued in payment of the purchase money. The com-missioners
were also directed to execute and deliver mortgage deeds with
78 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
power to sell to secure these bonds. The State, itself, assumed no obliga-tions
for the payment of the bonds. The interest, thereon, was to be paid
from the receipts of the railroad, if sufficient. If there was a deficit in the
receipts, then this amount was to be paid out of the general fund and such
payment was to constitute a lien upon the railroad and all its property,
second only to the first mortgage and the receipts from the railroad were
to reimburse the State Treasurer, chapter 150 PL 1874-75.
Thereafter, the State attempted to complete this railroad through the
use of State convicts. In this process, the commissioners in charge of
the completion of the railroad, had great difficulty in building it through
what was known as the "Mud Cut" this side of the city of Asheville. This
difficulty gave rise to much criticism throughout the State. There were
a series of letters published in the Raleigh papers, understood to have been
written by the Honorable Walter Clark, which created such a sensation as
caused them to be known, since, as the "Mud Cut Boom Letters."
In 1880, Honorable T. J. Jarvis, Governor, W. J. Best and a group of
associates, proposed to buy the railroad from the State. This transaction
was closed after a special session of the General Assembly approved it in
that year. Best later was unable to meet his obligation in full and, in
consequence, Mr. A. B. Andrews and other railroad men came to his re-lief
and all of his interest passed to the Richmond & Danville Railroad.
Then the creditors of the Richmond & Danville Railroad brought action in
the Federal Court to foreclose the mortgage upon that system. The West-ern
& North Carolina Railroad passed to the Southern Railway Company
at the sale of the property of the Richmond & Danville road.
It may be mentioned here, that when the money for the Western North
Carolina Railroad had been paid, it was used for current expenses, so there
was no State tax at all levied in 1884.
It is manifest from this short recital of the facts, that the rights of all
holders of mortgage secured bonds of the railroad have been foreclosed by
two sales of the railroad's property, under orders of the Federal Court.
There were no 8% bonds issued under the act of 1874-75. These bonds
were limited to 7%.
So it is clear that Mr. Townsend's bond was not one issued upon the re-organization
of the railroad after the sale of 1875.
Courts—Special
31 July, 1929.
In re: Calling Special Term for Mecklenburg County
The trial of the accused persons at Gastonia having been removed by
Judge Barnhill to Mecklenburg County, you request of this office an opinion
as to whether or not the Governor may order a special term for that county,
under existing statutes, to commence on Monday, August 26.
We think it clear that he can.
BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 79
The part of section 1450, permitting the Governor to call a special term,
not to interfere with any of the regular terms of the court of the district,
has been modified by chapter 100, extra session 1924, as follows:
The Governor may order a special term of court to be held
in any county or district during the holding of a regular term
of the Superior Court in such county or district, either by a
judge of the Superior Court or by any emergency judge if the
dispatch of business requires it."
All the circumstances, in the instant case, concur in sustaining the au-thority
of the Governor to call this particular term, though a regular crim-inal
court is to be held in Mecklenburg County at the time. The Governor,
in calling this special term is exercising an executive power of the gov-ernment,
consequently his action in that regard cannot be inquired of by
the courts and coordinate department of the government in this particular.
State V. Hall 142 N. C, 710.
The time fixed for this court, August 26th, is ample time to permit the
advertisement and drawing of the jui-y required by C. S. section 1452.
Orthopedic Hospital—Latta Bequest
23 August, 1929.
In re: Bequest of Mr. Edward D. Latta to the Orthopedic Hospital
After considering the letter of August 19, 1929, addressed to you by
Messrs Morgan B. Speir, J. Lee Robinson and J. C. Whitloek, Committee
of the Board of Trustees of the North Carolina Orthopedic Hospital, we
have come to the conclusion that their contention therein, as to the control
and disposition of the fund derived from the bequest of Mr. Latta is
sound.
This institution was founded in 1909. It was opened for the receipt of
patients July 1, 1921. The reason of its existence is thus stated: "To
treat, heal and teach scientifically, orphan poor and neglected crippled and
deformed children of sound mind in North Carolina."
In 1917, the State, for the first time, came to the aid of this institution
and appropriated $20,000 for the erection and furnishing of buildings, but
this $20,000 must be matched by the same sum secured from other sources.
At that time, too, the State appropriated $7,500 for each year of the en-suing
biennium for the support of the institution. The Governor was auth-orized
to appoint a Board of Trustees for the institution, chapter 199, Public
Laws 1917. The same appropriation for maintenance was continued in
1919, chapter 145 P. L. This sum was increased to $25,000 per annum in
1921, chapter 86, P. L. In that year, also, was appropriated $100,000 for
buildings and equipment, chapter 165 P. L. For maintenance, the annual
appropriation was increased to $65,000, chapter 163 P. L., while for per-manent
improvements, there was a lump sum of $25,000, chapter 162. In
1925 $6,500 was made for permanent improvements, chapter 192 P. L..
80 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
while the maintenance appropriation was increased to $70,000 each year,
chapter 275 P. L. In 1927, $175,000 was appropriated for permanent im-provements,
chapter 147 P. L., while its maintenance appropriation was
increased to $86,500 in 1927-28 and $112,500 in 1928-29. In 1929, $8,062
was appropriated for extension of sewerage plant and for transmission
line, while $121,500 per annum was appropriated for maintenance.
This recapitulation shows that the Orthopedic Hospital is distinctly a
State institution, managed by a Board of Trustees appointed by the Govern-or.
In 1927, the Board of Trustees of this institution were specifically
authorized to accept bequests of money, etc. on behalf of the institution,
chapter 188, P. L.
Mr. Edward D, Latta died some two or three years ago and, in his will
made a bequest to the Orthopedic Hospital in the following terms:
One-fourth of the income from said residuum I direct my
said Trustee to pay annually, or oftener if need be, to the
proper officials of the Orthopedic Hospital, by whatever name
known, located at or near Gastonia, N. C, to create a fund
to be known as the "Edward D. Latta Orthopedic Hospital
Fund", which said fund shall be used exclusively for the treat-ment
of poor and indigent crippled children.
After Mr. Latta's death, his will was contested by certain of the bene-ficiaries
therein. This action resulted in a compromise. Under this com-promise,
a judgment of the court was rendered, which provided that the
Orthopedic Hospital receive the corpus of the bequest to it at the end of
five years. This was coupled with a provision that, under certain condi-tions,
the trustee, under Mr. Latta's will, might have ten years in which
to reduce the assets to cash and deliver the corpus to the beneficiaries, in-cluding
the Orthopedic Hospital. In the meantime, the hospital was to
get the income in cash from such part of the principal as is reduced to
cash, from time to time. Under these provisions, the hospital has already
received, from the trustee, about $65,000. This money has been placed
on deposit in a special account in the First National Bank of Gastonia.
In the first place, this is a valid charitable trust, having proper trustee
and legitimate objects of the bounty of the donor. We think that the se-lection
by Mr, Latta of the trustee to administer this trust, did not indicate
that the benefits derived from it should inure to the people of the State of
North Carolina at large, but only to the particular class stated in the trust-to-
wit: the poor and indigent crippled children. If the fund, then, should
be used so that the annual appropriations for the maintenance of the
institution should be reduced, it would, then, be diverted to purposes other
than those intended by the donor. His evident intention was to extend the
benefits of the institution to the children described in his bequest, where,
from the limited amount available from the state appropriation these chil-dren
would not derive such benefit.
We, therefore, agree with the committee of the trustees, that this money
received for this purpose, does not come within the provisions of the
"Daily Depository Act," chapter 128, P. L. 1929. Indeed, section 6 de-clares
that the act shall not apply to any gifts or donations to any institu-
BIENNIAL REPORT OP THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 81
tion, when, in the instrument, evidencing said donation of it, a contrary
disposition or handling is prescribed or required. This charitable gift,
then, is to be administered in accordance with the provisions of Mr. Latta's
will, for the benefit of the class designated therein. This could not be
done, if it was considered a bequest for the benefit of the people of the
State. It is, indeed, a private gift for the purposes stated therein. For
this and similar reasons, we also agree with the committee that this fund
is not to be administered under the direction of the director of the budget
or the Budget Bureau. It is to be administered, however, under the con-trol
of the courts, under express stated authority contained in C. S. 4033-
4035, inclusive. In other words, and in . conclusion, though the trustee
selected, in the instant case, is composed of public officials, yet the trust,
itself, is intended to be administered as though the trustee is a private
corporation or individual.
Though it is evident that Mr. Latta did not intend the fund provided by
him to displace or at all lessen the fund provided by the State for the
support of this institution, yet, from the selection of his trustee, a per-manent
governing body of the institution, itself, it is evident that he in-tended
his beneficence to supplement that of the State and to provide treat-ment
for the class, which he designates, which the State has not provided.
Of course, under such circumstances, the Board of Trustees will, no doubt,
provide a scheme for the administration of this fund, which will effectuate
the purpose of the donor.
Mr. Whitlock, of the committee, is a very capable and experienced law-yer
and, for his benefit, we refer him to
Tincher v. Arnold, 7 LRA (NS), page 471, the
cases cited therein and the note appended.
National Guard—Request of Sheriff
16 September, 1929.
You ask my opinion as to whether you have the power to send the Na-tional
Guard into a county to aid in executing the law, except upon re-quest
from the sheriff of such county.
North Carolina Constitution, article XII, section 3, is as follows:
The Governor shall be commander-in-chief, and shall have
power to call out the militia to execute the law, suppress riots
and insurrections, and to repel invasions.
Again, Constitution, article III, section 7, says that the Governor
Shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
It will be observed that these constitutional provisions contain no limi-tation
upon the right of the Governor to order out the National Guard or
make his action in the premises to depend upon request from any particular
source.
82 BIENNIAL REPORT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
A portion of C. S. 6865 provides:
The Governor may, whenever the public service requires it
order upon special or regular duty any officer or enlisted man
of the National Guard or naval militia.
In Worth v. Commissioners, 118 N. C, 112, it is said:
And in the exercise of this discretion, unrestricted by leg-islation,
we hold that he (the Governor) had a right to ob-tain
his information from such sources as he thought reli-
. able—from the sheriff or any one else—just as a judge
would have the right to do in exercising a judicial discre-tio